Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

French Protestant Episcopal Church of the Savoy Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Saint Mary's Church, Birmingham and General Hospital Bill [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SALTASH HOSPITAL (WATER SUPPLY).

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that there is a shortage of water at the Ministry of Pensions Hospital for neurasthenics at Saltash, and that 450 patients and a large staff have not the necessary supplies, he will allow the patients to return home and continue to draw full treatment allowances?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The temporary shortage of water which prevailed for a few days at
Saltash Hospital has now disappeared. The supply for the last fortnight has been normal and is adequate for all requirements. I do not anticipate any further difficulty.

Colonel DAY: Are any steps being taken to see that this does not happen again?

Major TRYON: The water supply of Plymouth is not under my direct charge, but we take all precautions and steps we can to see that the patients are not put to inconvenience.

ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE (FINES).

Colonel DAY: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number and amount of fines imposed on disabled men for leaving institutions of the Ministry, without permission, to visit their families at Easter and Whitsuntide this year; whether these fines were deducted from allowances payable to wives and children while the allowances to the men were paid in full; and will he state why it was decided to deduct them from such allowances?

Major TRYON: The information asked for in the first part of the question is, I fear, not available. The suggestion conveyed in the second part of the question is entirely contrary to the Regulations of the Ministry, which specifically provide that any fine inflicted shall be recoverable out of the allowances due to the man alone, and not out of those payable under the Royal Warrant to his wife and family, and I am not aware of any departure from this rule.

WIDOWS AND ORPHANS (SICKNESS GRANTS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether sickness grants are still being made to the widows and orphans of men killed in the Great War; and what was the amount disbursed in sickness grants in the six months ending 30th June, 1925?

Major TRYON: Supplementary grants in cases of prolonged illness are still made by the Special Grants Committee in exceptional circumstances. The expenditure incurred for this purpose for the six months ended 31st May last—the latest date to which the accounts have been made up—was £l,753.

Mr. ROBINSON: Who decides the circumstances? Is it the doctors or some board?

Major TRYON: It is a matter with which the Special Grants Committee themselves deal.

APPLICATION FORMS.

Mr. W. BAKER: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that, in the event of the death of an officer in the Royal Navy, it is the practice of the Admiralty to issue a form to the widow, which she is asked to complete, when any pension for which she is eligible is automatically issued; and whether he will state the reasons which prevent his Ministry from adopting a similar practice in the case of the widows of naval and military pensioners?

Major TRYON: The practice of the Admiralty referred to applies to widows of naval officers in the regular Service, who are ordinary entitled to some award of service or other pension. A similar practice would not be appropriate in the case of widows of naval or military pensioners of the great War dying long after the termination of their war service. In such cases the widow is not entitled to pension unless the circumstances of her husband's death make her eligible for it, and the procedure suggested by the hon. Member could only have the effect in many cases of raising false hopes and causing eventual disappointment.

Mr. BAKER: Would not the adoption of this practice be to prevent any serious difficulty that might arise where the widow fails to exercise her rights?

Major TRYON: I do not think that the practice would entirely be to the advantage of widows. We do not find any difficulty about the applications coming in. I think the rights are generally recognised.

ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider the advisability of setting up a Select Committee of Members of all political parties in the House of Commons to go into all matters connected with rules, regulations and Orders issued by his Department?

Major TRYON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister in this House on the 26th March last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Although the right hon. Gentleman can never expect to give entire satisfaction to every applicant, does he not think that a Committee of this description would at least give all applicants some measure of consolation that fair dealing and even justice was being handed out?

Major TRYON: That was not the view of either the late Government or the present Government. This matter, as my hon. Friend knows, was fully discussed during the Debate; but I am making inquiries myself.

OULTON HALL HOSPITAL.

Mr. LUNN: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it has been decided to close the hospital at Oulton Hall, near Leeds; if so, on what date does he propose to close it and for what reason; is he aware that Oulton Hall is the only neurasthenic hospital in the county of York; that the hall and grounds have been given free to the nation by the owner to be used for this purpose; that there are 120 patients there and a large number of ex-service men who have received considerable benefit from treatment at this establishment; and that there is no other way in which they can be treated so economically; and will tie reconsider his decision so as to allow the good work to proceed uninterruptedly?

Major TRYON: In view of the continuous decline in the number of pensioners requiring the kind of treatment provided at Oulton Hall it has been decided, after a careful review of the position throughout the country, to close this hospital (where there are at present 84 patients, only 42 of whom are drawn from the county of York) at or about the end of this month. In arriving at this decision, the points mentioned by the hon. Member have not been overlooked, but I have had to keep in view the general requirements and the necessity for making the most efficient and advantageous use of the facilities for neurological treatment at my disposal, having regard to the reduced number of cases to be dealt with and their distribution over the country as a whole.

Mr. LUNN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman where he proposes to send these war pensioners to now? I think he has not answered the question as to how these people can be better or more economically treated than they are treated at Oulton Hall. Is he aware that there is considerable feeling already in the district on the matter?

Major TRYON: I am glad to hear the hon. Member's view—with which I entirely concur—that this hospital has been of great advantage to all concerned. My difficulty, however, is that the number of patients has been continuously declining for a number of years, and it is quite impossible to keep all hospitals open when they are not needed.

Mr. LUNN: Will the same facilities as at present be provided at any other place where you may send these patients?

Major TRYON: Yes. I understand that the facilities provided will be as good as those originally provided. In regard to the individual distribution of the men, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

Mr. DALTON: What is going to happen to this hall and grounds, which we understand were given for this purpose?

Major TRYON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question down?

Mr. LUNN: It is in my question. This hall and grounds have been granted for this particular purpose, and it is very important that we should continue there in view of the large number of people requiring treatment.

Major TRYON: The question does not ask about the destination, but it does contain an accidental error, because the Ministry is not the owner of the house and grounds, which have only been granted on a temporary lease.

Mr. LUNN: For this purpose?

Major TRYON: For this purpose!

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMBERWELL ROAD (ACCIDENTS).

Colonel DAY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that at the junction of Albany Road and Camberwell Road, S.E., several serious accidents, one of them of a fatal
nature, have recently occurred; that near this spot is a school for blind children who have to board tramcars at this junction; and will he, in view of these circumstances, arrange for the provision of a police point at this spot?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The accident statistics at this spot show that, having regard to the amount of traffic, there is no exceptional element of danger. Arrangements are already in force for a police officer to assist the children entering and leaving the Boyson Road school for the blind. In addition to this, a police constable from a neighbouring fixed point attends at 8.30 a.m. and assists all children who may arrive by tramcar and have to cross the road after alighting. No accident is recorded in which children attending school were concerned.

Colonel DAY: Would the right hon. Gentleman see whether some facilities could be given to the children leaving school; that a police officer will be there?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will inquire, but I am assured by the police that every possible assistance that can be is given.

Colonel DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the difficulty about the blind children getting across the road?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There has never been an accident yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES BILL.

Mr. ROBINSON: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to give the date when it is proposed to introduce the Factories Bill?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret I am still not in a position to fix a date for the introduction of this Bill.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider deferring the introduction of this Bill until he has been able to incorporate in it some provision to enable satisfactory provision to be made in offices?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that that is quite another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH PRISONERS.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is intended that the Irish prisoners transported from Ireland to Maidstone gaol shall continue to serve their sentences there; and, in view of the fact that some of them are serving life sentences, will he arrange that the relatives of these prisoners shall be granted free passes to visit them at the intervals prescribed for visits to prisoners?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no present intention of transferring these prisoners from Maidstone to another prison. As to the second part of the question, there are no means at my disposal for paying the expenses incurred by the relatives of convicts in visiting them.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not usual to allow access to the relatives of prisoners? Could not the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the same facilities to be given here?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They have access already.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: What about free passes?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Free passes certainly mean expense. I have no means at my disposal to pay the railway companies for passes.

Mr. J. JONES: Is it not a fact that an Irish prisoner serving his sentence in an English gaol is practically derelict—with no friends?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by being left derelict.

Mr. JONES: I mean this. His relatives cannot afford to travel at their own expense from Ireland, most of them being poor people; therefore, it means that the relatives cannot visit any prisoner here like the relatives of an English prisoner can visit him.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is one excellent way to get over that difficulty, and that is not to be sent to prison.

Mr. JONES: A man who makes a statement like that deserves to go to prison himself. I have been.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: As one who has been in gaol—[Interruption.]—I know what it is to be in gaol. As one who has been in gaol, and arising out of the Minister's answer, I should like to ask the Minister if it is not the case that they are keeping these prisoners here because there is no accommodation for them in Ireland? That being the case, is it not correct and just that the people in Ireland should have facility for visiting their friends who are jailed in this country.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no power over any funds at all except in connection with this country, and I am not disposed to ask this Parliament to give me power to pay the expenses of Irishmen who wish to visit their people.

Mr. JONES: Is not Northern Ireland part and parcel of Great Britain, and apart altogether from the Irish Free State?

Mr. STEPHEN: Would not the Minister make representations to the Government of Northern Ireland in respect to these men?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. I really cannot see why in this business we should give special facilities to these people which are not given to other prisoners.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHARITABLE SOCIETIES.

Mr. BRIANT: 13.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that, as stated in a recent trial, there is nothing to prevent anyone from starting a charity and living on the proceeds; and if he will appoint a committee to inquire as to what steps can be taken to prevent the misuse of the gifts of the charitable and the prejudice resulting to genuine charitable societies?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to the hon. Members for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and Blackpool (Sir W. de Free) on the 18th June.

Mr. BRIANT: Do I understand that the Committee is appointed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, yes; a very strong Committee was appointed about a month ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. SPENCER: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction prevailing amongst the dependants of deceased persons under the Workmen's Compensation Acts with the present method of investing their funds in Post Office savings; and will he device some scheme for investing in the trustee stock bearing a higher rate of interest?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no information to the effect suggested in the first part of the question, and the hon. Member appears to be under some misconception. The compensation is not required to be invested in the Post Office Savings Bank, but may, at the discretion of the Court, be invested in certain Government stocks, including the 5 per cent. War Loan, or, with the consent of the Treasury, in various other trustee securities. I am informed by the Lord Chancellor's Department, within whose jurisdiction the matter lies, that this discretion is widely exercised by the Courts.

Mr. SPENCER: Is there any power whatever to deal with this matter, because recently I have had to complain about an investment going to a fund where the least possible interest is paid instead of the highest?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I say, it is under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, not myself. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any particular case, I will communicate with the Lord Chancellor at once.

Mr. SPENCER: 15.
asked the Home Secretary what provision, if any, is made in the rules for the payment of expenses and loss of time to a workman attending a medical referee at the request of an employer, and under an order of the registrar of the County Court, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In cases of industrial disease under Section 8 of the Act of 1906, if the employer appeals against the certificate of the certifying surgeon, he is required to give an undertaking to pay any reasonable travelling expenses incurred by the workman in attending for examination by the medical referee. No similar provision has been
made for other classes of cases where the workman may be required, at the employer's instance, to attend a referee, but I have under consideration a fresh regulation on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON TRAFFIC (AERIAL DIRECTION).

Captain BRASS: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the great congestion in some of the London streets at certain hours of the day, he will consider the advisability of employing an Army kite balloon, stationed either in one of the parks or other open spaces, so that the Metropolitan Police may study from the air the congestion points and the reason for their existence, with a view to framing regulations for single-direction roads and alternative routes to relieve the pressure in these areas?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Commissioner already has this suggestion in mind, and will consider adopting the plan when occasion arises.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could not the Home Secretary consider the advisability of sending officials up in aeroplanes and arranging for them to telephone back where the congestion is?

Sir FRANK MEYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisibility of issuing fresh instructions to the police urging them to insist on slow moving traffic keeping to the kerb?

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGHT BAKING CONVENTION.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 17.
asked the Home Secretary what the figures were of the final vote in favour of the ratification of the Convention for the abolition of night baking at the International Labour Conference; how many of the votes adverse to ratification represented Governments and which Governments; how many represented the employers; and how many the workers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The figures at the final vote showed 81 in favour of the draft Convention and 26 against. Of the adverse votes, three were given by delegates representing the British and
Indian Governments, and the remainder by employers' delegates. There were a considerable number of abstentions.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 18.
asked the Home Secretary what the British Government propose to do in regard to the abolition of night baking; and whether they intend to legislate in order to carry into effect the Convention recently ratified by an overwhelming majority at the International Labour Conference at Geneva?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to statements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and myself in answers to questions on the 7th and 13th May. In view of the findings of the Royal Commission on Food Prices, and having regard to the fact that none of the amendments which His Majesty's Government considered necessary were adopted by the Conference, the Government will not be able to ratify the draft Convention. No other steps to prohibit night baking are at present in contemplation.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Is it not the case that when amendments were moved on behalf of the Government the spokesman of the Government said that even if they were carried by the Convention the Government would not ratify them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is not within my knowledge, and if the right hon. Gentleman states it to be a fact I will have immediate inquiries made.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I saw it in a report.

Mr. MACKINDER: Are we to understand that although the Convention has been ratified the British Government refuse to put it into operation and continue to allow night baking?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is exactly what I said.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether European countries which have ratified this Convention have actually put it into operation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think there are any at present.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not the fact that a previous Committee approved the abolition of night baking?
Was not one of his own colleagues a member of that Committee, and did he not sign the Report?

Mr. J. JONES: As a member of that Committee, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that it was unanimously decided that, with certain limitations, all-night baking should be abolished in this country—long before there was a question of an international agreement? The right hon. Gentleman's colleague on that Committee acted most enthusiastically in favour of the abolition of night baking.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not know whether I can debate the whole subject in an answer to a question. The present Government have decided not to ratify the Convention, and I think any further questions should be put in debate.

Mr. PALING: In view of the overwhelming opinion in favour of abolition, does not the Home Secretary think the action of the British Government is likely to prejudice the whole future of the International Labour Office?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEETINGS (POLICE ATTENDANCE).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 20.
asked the Home Secretary what general rules govern the attendance of secret police at meetings; on what subjects they are asked to report; and whether they are employed to register in general opinions expressed, or whether their duties are limited to the prevention of crime and of the advocacy of crime?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is the duty of the police to obtain ail the information they can with regard to the aims and projects of revolutionaries, in order that they may inform His Majesty's Government on the subject and be forearmed against any attempts to put such projects into effect. It is impossible to state categorically the means by which this duty can best be discharged, and. even if it were possible, it would not be in the public interest to do so.

Captain BENN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say clearly whether the purpose of these secret police visits is to register opinions or to prevent the advocacy of violence? That is the question on the Paper.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The object of police attendance at any particular meeting is to inform me of what takes place at that particular meeting; and if there are revolutionary sentiments or revolutionary projects discussed at that meeting, it would then be my duty to see that they are not carried into effect.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if police duties also include attendance at dinner parties where revolutionary talk may be going on, and if that is extended to the private dining rooms of the House of Commons, where I hold dinners with my revolutionary friends on occasions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. Member may be satisfied that he is quite safe as long as he dines and expresses his revolutionary sentiments in this building.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the Home Secretary state at what stage he decides to send detectives? Does he send them, for instance, to Conservative gatherings, or to the Fascisti, to find out if they express revolutionary sentiments, or are they sent merely to gatherings of labour people because they happen to be opponents of his?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is quite mistaken. In the first place, I do not send anybody.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On whose instructions do they go?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They go under the instructions of the head of the police, who is responsible for the preservations of order in this country, under myself, I admit. I have general control, but I do not send in specific cases, and it is his duty to exercise his discretion and not to waste police force time in sending the police where they are not likely to hear any revolutionary opinions.

Mr. J. JONES: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: This matter can be raised on the Home Office Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLLING FACILITIES, ABINGDON DIVISION.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether, on 3rd October,
1924, he received 32 petitions signed by over 1,100 registered electors, and accompanied by a. certified copy of the Ordnance Survey map, as required by him, asking for an additional order to be made on the local authority, the county council of Berkshire, to provide additional polling districts and polling places in the Abingdon Division of the said county; and what steps have been taken since to consider and act upon the said petitions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These petitions were received in the Home Office last October and, in accordance with the usual practice, were referred to the county council for their observations. These observations have not yet been received: as the hon. Member is aware, a new council was elected last March, and I am pressing the council to let me have their observations at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

MID-DAY MEALS (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. BRIANT: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will make it obligatory for local education authorities, when reconstructing or building schools, to provide suitable places where children who live too far away to go home for their mid-day meal can eat their dinners, and also facilities for heating the food the children bring?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The Board have brought the question of the mid-day meal to the notice of local authorities in a recent circular, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

VISUAL TREATMENT.

Mr. BRIANT: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board has taken any steps to enforce the provision of medical inspection for the detection and correction of visual defects in these schools under the 14 local education authorities which the chief medical officer of health, in his Report of 1923, states make no such provision?

Lord E. PERCY: I am glad to say that of the 14 local authorities in question, six have, since the Report was issued,
provided for visual treatment, and seven others have submitted proposals for such provision. In the remaining case I am advised that any treatment which may be required can be obtained without special provision being made by the authority.

ABNORMAL CHILDREN.

Mr. PALING: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, as a result of the circular issued by him last year, any schemes have been submitted for his approval making provision for the education of abnormal children?

Lord E. PERCY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on the 25th June last to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Robert Morrison), a copy of which I am sending him.

TEACHERS' SALARIES (BURNHAM AWARD).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities have already accepted the new Burnham award on salary scales; whether any, and, if so, what, authorities have definitely refused to accept it; and how many have as yet made no decision?

Lord E. PERCY: Some authorities have not yet had time to arrive at a formal decision on the matter, but the information in my possession suggests that the award is meeting with very general acceptance on the part of authorities, and I know of no case where it has been decided to reject it.

TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS AND UNIVERSITIES.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of industrial students of technical institutions in Great Britain, for the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, respectively, who also take some university training; and what steps he is taking to ensure greater co-operation of aim and policy between technical institutions and universities?

Lord E. PERCY: As the reply to this question is very long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

There are numerous ways in which a technical college student may be con-
nected with a university. The University of London recognises teachers in non-university institutions in London and the neighbourhood, including certain polytechnics and similar institutions. In the result of these arrangements the university may admit to its degree examinations as internal students of the university those matriculated students who are taught by recognised teachers in technical colleges. Apart from these arrangements it is open to any technical college to prepare students for the external examinations of the University of London, and in a, number of technical schools and colleges individual students obtain university degrees in this manner. Of the technical college students who obtain internal or external degrees of the University of London, the majority are full-time students without industrial experience, but part-time students engaged in industry are occasionally successful.

Some scholarships are provided by local education authorities in the Lancashire area to enable young men who are engaged in the textile industry to attend the Manchester Municipal College for part-time or full-time study. The full-time students at this college study for the degree or diploma of the University of Manchester.

The Board's Royal Scholarships which are occasionally obtained, particularly in engineering, by students who have attended technical colleges are tenable at the Imperial College of Science and Technology, which is a university institution. Sir Joseph Whitworth's Scholarships, which may be held for university study, are open only to candidates with industrial experience.

The University of Leeds has arrangements for giving credit to study in certain technical colleges before entry to the university, and I understand that some extension of these arrangements is in prospect. Apart from these definite arrangements under which technical college students may obtain university degrees as students in university institutions or otherwise, a few industrial students proceed to university institutions after attending technical colleges.

The number of technical college students who took a university examination other than Matriculation, in the years ended 31st July, 1922, 1923 and
1924, was 330, 271 and 328, respectively. The number of these students who had obtained industrial experience could not be stated without further inquiry. As regards students who obtained Royal Scholarships and Whitworth Scholarships, I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the regulations and syllabuses of the examinations, and of the published lists of awards. He will perceive that the relations of technical colleges to universities are by no means simple or uniform, and only a somewhat elaborate statement, based upon a special and detailed inquiry, addressed to both university institutions and technical colleges, would answer my hon. Friend's question in the very general and vague form in which it is put. I am doubtful whether the importance of the matter would justify such an inquiry.

With reference to the second part of the question, I have no doubt that universities and technical colleges in industrial areas are aware of the advantages of co-operation, and I think it may be left to them to settle their relations to their mutual advantage without my intervention. As regards Scotland, I must refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

CHILDREN (INSURANCE).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in the case of an employer who employs children up to 16 years of age, and then dispenses with their services, seeing that such children are not insurable under either health or unemployment insurance, any provision is in contemplation whereby such employer may contribute to the funds, or whether it is intended that he shall avoid all responsibility?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I understand that the matter referred to in the question has been brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, and until the Report of the Commission is issued, I am not prepared to contemplate legislation in the sense suggested by the hon. Member. As regards unemployment insurance, I suggest that he should address a question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. PALING: 36.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount of Poor Law relief paid on account of unemployment or under-employment during the years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a previous similar question put by the hon. Member for Attercliffe, of which I am sending him a copy.

LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES.

Mr. FENBY: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government has decided to continue the winter land drainage schemes for the alleviation of unemployment which have been in existence for the last two years; and, if not, whether he can suggest any alternative scheme for the benefit of those for whom land drainage would have provided work?

Mr. WOOD: The question referred to by the hon. Member is still under consideration. I hope to be able to make an anouncement at a very early date.

Mr. PALING: Are the local authorities sending in schemes as much as in the last two years, or is there any lack of schemes?

Mr. WOOD: I cannot answer that without notice.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Can my right hon. Friend see his way to get the Department to pay more than 75 per cent. of the total charge, which falls heavily on individual farmers in some parts of the country?

Mr. WOOD: I cannot give my Noble Friend an undertaking of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUAL WARDS (TASKS).

Miss WILKINSON: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in future, he will circulate to Members of the House any draft orders relating to the tasks of the casual poor and receive their suggestions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I could not undertake to adopt this suggestion.

Miss WILKINSON: 33.
asked the Minister of Health why he retained the
oakum task for women when he had already received requests from the National Association of Masters and Matrons, the Union and Rural District Clerks' Association, and other associations to abolish it, and none in favour of retaining it, especially considering that these two associations were composed of a large number of persons immediately engaged in the work of the Poor Law; and why he increased the task for the one-night visitors?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I explained to the hon. Member in reply to a previous question, the other associations to whom the draft order was submitted did not suggest the abolition of oakum picking for women casuals. Nothing in the order required a board of guardians who disapprove the task to apply it. I therefore saw no ground for altering the existing regulations on the point. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a previous similar question put by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, of which I am sending her a copy.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask why, when the right hon. Gentleman receives an overwhelming, in fact a unanimous body of opinion from experts on this matter, he does not consider it necessary to carry out their recommendations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Lady understood the answer which I gave.

Mr. WEBB: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a single representation in favour of this practice?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As that matter was not mentioned, I took it that they did not hold any very strong opinion on that subject.

Miss WILKINSON: Has not the Minister of Health been a little casuistical in this matter in stating that it was unanimous, whereas now he states that no strong opinion has been expressed against it?

Oral Answers to Questions — DRIED FRUITS (SMYRNA).

Mr. HARRIS: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any Reports on the conditions under which dried fruits
and currants are handled at Smyrna; whether any of such fruits have arrived in this country in an unsatisfactory condition; and, if so, whether he will consider prohibiting their importation into this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I have received reports as to the conditions under which dried fruit is packed at Smyrna. Samples of the fruit have been, taken from time to time and examined in this country, but no positive evidence of contamination has been found. I am keeping the matter under observation but as at present advised, I do not think that there is sufficient reason for prohibiting the importation of the fruit into this country.

Mr. HARRIS: If any of this fruit is proved to be bad or unhealthy, may I assume that it will be confiscated and destroyed?

Mr. J. JONES: Might I ask whether some investigation of a very direct character should not be made into the conditions under which these fruits are got and packed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have had investigations made, but I do not think we can have any more direct investigations than a careful examination of the food itself.

Brigadier-General Sir H. CROFT: As there seems to be a great interest taken in this particular question, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the people of this country that they can get all their fruit of this description from Australia?

Oral Answers to Questions — Mr. W. S. HARNETT (DETENTION IN MENTAL HOSPITALS).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will advise the Government to pay to Mr. William Smart Harnett an adequate sum in compensation for his wrongful detention in various mental hospitals, having regard to the fact that Mr. Harnett has been found by a jury to have been sane when detained by Dr. Bond and for the rest of his detention, that this opinion has not been upset by either the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, by which tribunals Mr. Harnett's case has been heard, and having regard to the fact that, although
having thus been found to be sane, Mr. Harriett is to-day practically a ruined man on account of the legal expenses of the three actions in which he was concerned and the heavy expenses of his confinement, in all a sum of over £25,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that any claim for compensation out of public funds can be substantiated in this case. In any event, no servant of the Crown was involved other than Dr. Bond, and, as my Noble Friend is no doubt aware, a new trial has been ordered against Dr. Bond and the matter is therefore still sub judice. I must not, however, be taken as admitting that the questions accurately states the facts, for I observe that the Lord Chancellor in his judgment dismissing Mr. Harnett's appeal expressly pointed out that it was not in fact proved at the trial, nor found by the jury, that the appellant was of sound mind between the date of his alleged detention by Dr. Bond and his subsequent escape from custody.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPROVED SOCIETIES (OPHTHALMIC BENEFIT).

Mr. BENNETT: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, as a result of the new model scheme for the provision of ophthalmic benefit by approved societies, which stipulates that an applicant for the benefit must, at a cost of Is., have obtained and furnished his society with a written recommendation from a panel doctor, the charge for the necessary ophthalmic examination of the applicant has increased from 5s., which was the fee paid to qualified opticians, to £l Is., which is the fee charged by ophthalmic surgeons; and whether, in view of the satisfactory nature of the service heretofore rendered by qualified opticians, he will suspend the order until the Royal Commission on the disposal of the surplus funds of the various approved societies can investigate and report on the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that the cost of ophthalmic benefit under the new scheme may, in certain cases, show an increase as stated by the hon. Member over the cost of optical benefit under the existing schemes, but there will be no charge for the insurance doctor's
recommendation, and the new arrangements have been generally accepted by approved societies. It is impracticable to adopt the suggestion in the latter part of the question, inasmuch as the new schemes for societies and branches valued as at the 31st December, 1922, are due to commence on Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATHS FROM STARVATION, BERKSHIRE.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Health what inquiries, if any, were made as to the starvation cases of tramps and homeless men in Berkshire, when it appeared that they were about five times as many in proportion to population as those in the rest of the provinces; and what inquiries were made by his officers as to the death of Richard Gillam, from inanition and exposure, near Holmbury last May, and as to William Johnson near Romford last April?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will refer to one of the old returns he will see the nature of the inquiries made for the purposes of those returns. Inquiries are made in any cases in which there is any suggestion that a defect in the Poor Law administration may have contributed to a death of this kind. I have not had time to obtain from my inspector a report on the two cases which are mentioned in the question, but I am inquiring and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, EARL SHILTON.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the housing conditions existing in Earl Shilton, in Leicestershire; whether he is aware that many of the cottages are in imminent danger of falling down, that others, the upper rooms of which are open to the weather, are inhabited, and that in consequence of the shortage of houses many couples, who were recently married, have no hope of getting houses; that consumption is rife in the township; whether any efforts are being made to deal with the situation; what is the attitude of his Department towards the matter; and whether he will take action to secure some improvement of the conditions prevailing?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to this matter, and I am in communication with the local authority for the district, who have submitted proposals for the erection of houses in this and other parishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILM INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has given further consideration to the state of the British cinema film-producing industry, as brought to his attention recently by an appeal to him from a number of prominent persons asking for a committee of inquiry; and whether he can now see his way to set up such a committee of inquiry?

Captain A. EVANS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he will reconsider the suggestion to appoint a committee to inquire into the state of the British film industry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have been asked to reply to these questions. For the reasons given in my answer of the 24th June, I do not think that the appointment by the Government of a special Committee would be of real value at the present time. The Government will keep themselves informed as to the progress of the discussions now taking place. In this way the Government will be best able to judge whether and at what stage the appointment of a Government Committee would serve a useful purpose.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As the hon. Gentleman has answered this question, may I ask him if it is the Board of Trade that is particularly identified with this question?

Sir B. CHADWICK: As I have already said, no particular Department of the Government has identified itself with this subject, and we do not think any useful purpose would be served by instituting another inquiry.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Board of Trade watching this matter, and do they propose to take any steps to do anything at all?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The Board of Trade is undoubtedly watching the matter
and keeping itself informed of the discussions which are taking place between all the interests concerned.

Mr. HARRIS: Has not the Prime Minister stated that the restoration of the film industry is one of the principal ways of restoring employment in this country?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Board of Trade Vote on Monday.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY (WAGES AGREEMENT).

Mr. LUNN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking to deal with the position in the mining industry, in view of the fact that the coalowners have given notice to terminate the agreement between themselves and the Miners' Federation of Great Britain at the end of July?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): For the reason given in reply to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Speak up; we cannot hear you.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is because other people are talking at the same time. For the reason given in reply to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the 23rd June, Government intervention would, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, be premature at this moment. Notice to terminate the present agreement will naturally be followed by negotiations between the two sides to see if a new agreement cannot be made, and these negotiations, I understand, are now being entered upon.

Mr. LUNN: During this week we had a speech from the Prime Minister in which he said that the Cabinet were considering the question of subsidising certain industries, and I would like to know whether the Cabinet has set up a Committee to consider the subsidising of the coal industry which is in such an awful state to-day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. PALING: Have the Cabinet done anything to meet this problem, or are they waiting until a crisis occurs?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already answered that point.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the attitude taken up by the Government of to-day is identical with that taken up in 1921, when the crash came?

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERIES DEPARTMENT.

Mr. FENBY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great national importance of agriculture and fisheries, he will consider taking steps to end the present combined Ministerial control of these industries by setting up separate Departments for agriculture and fisheries, each with a Minister responsible to this House?

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that the Prime Minister cannot see any good reason to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. FENBY: If the Prime Minister does not see his way to accept this suggestion, will he consider the alternative one of having one Minister with two Under-Secretaries, one attached specially for agriculture and the other for fisheries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will have my right hon. Friend's attention directed to the alternative suggestion.

Mr. HARDIE: Are the Government paying attention to the facts that are being developed by their own lecturers, as to the great waste of fish, especially plaice, under the system of trawling, where small fish are killed by the thousand in order to get a few big ones?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be addressed to the Minister. of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEDITIOUS PROPAGANDA.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government contemplate coming to some arrangement, if possible, with the
Allies and other Governments which are affected by revolutionary Communist propaganda, with the object of adopting concerted measures to put a stop to seditious activities?

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The circumstances of different countries vary so much that it must be left to each country to take the measures appropriate to the defence of society in its own sphere.

Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these intrigues are eating into the vitals of industry at the present time?[Interruption.]

Sir F. HALL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the statements made by the Secretary of State for India and the Attorney-General on the 27th June as to the intention of the Government to take action to put a stop to the Bolshevist intrigues against this country and against British interests in China and elsewhere were made with the authority of the Government; and if he will state what practical steps will be taken to give effect to these intentions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The speeches of my two colleagues were, of course, made with a full sense of the obligations of Cabinet responsibility, though they are, perhaps, rather inadequately summarised within the limits imposed by Parliamentary practice on the question of my hon. and gallant Friend. The Government are watching the situation, and will take from time to time whatever measures are required to protect British interests.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the Secretary of State accepts the statement that Bolshevist intrigues—presumably meaning Russian intrigues—are responsible for the present disorders in China?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I have already answered a question on that subject in this House, and I refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer which I gave.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a certain nation, but gave no nearer indication than that. I would like to ask him if he accepts the statement that it is presumably Russian action?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I deliberately refrained from mentioning any particular nation, but said that foreign influence was being used to foment trouble. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman persists, I will say that I meant Soviet influence.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to appoint a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the development of scarlet fever amongst his supporters?

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY (CABINET COMMITTEE).

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his suggestion that he would welcome any proposals to assist industry and relieve unemployment, he will be prepared to appoint a Committee1 of the House to originate, examine, investigate, and submit for his consideration any schemes that might contribute to the solution of this serious problem?

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend doubts whether a Select Committee would be the most effective machinery for dealing with this matter. There is a Committee of the Cabinet which keeps it continuously under consideration in all its aspects, and the Government are always prepared to examine any scheme or suggestion that may be put forward.

Mr. MACKINDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a scheme prepared after careful consideration by, say, a Select Committee of Members of this House, would be much better than the casual observations which are the best the Cabinet can do, with the amount of work they have?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the normal character of Cabinet discussions or decisions, whether in the case of this Cabinet or any other, but, with the highest respect for this House, I assure hon. Members that a Select Committee is not the best body for this purpose.

Mr. MACKINDER: On a point of explanation. I wish to say that I did not mean any disrespect when I made that remark.

Sir N. MOORE: Might I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Prime Minister asked for suggestions during the Debate, but that Members on this side had practically no opportunity, as practically the whole of the time was occupied by right hon. Gentlemen and others on the Front Bench?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the answer I have given to him indicates that we shall welcome any suggestions from him or from any other hon. Members; but we do not think that a Select Committee is the best method.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask to whom these suggestions should be submitted? This vague kind of way is no good for getting sound organisation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would suggest that the suggestions be made to the Prime Minister himself.

Mr. THURTLE: I take it that the last thing the right hon. Gentleman wants to stimulate is a stampede amongst the sheep?

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER LEE (SEWAGE POLLUTION).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the River Lee, which passes through thickly populated London districts, is at present badly polluted with crude sewage; that the pollution is now worse than it has ever been; that the state of the river is not only offensive to the many rowing clubs which use it, but is detrimental to the health of the dense riparian population; that the powers under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts are, as respects this river, divided between the Middlesex County Council and the Lee Conservancy Board; and that most of the pollution originates from tributaries within the control of the Middlesex County Council; and whether he will consider the desirability of promoting a short Bill to make the Lee Conservancy Board the rivers pollution prevention authority for the whole length of the river and its tributaries, and immediately urging the urban districts in Middlesex and the Middlesex County Council, in the interests of public health, to cease discharging sewage into the River Lee and its tributaries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the unsatisfactory conditions of this river. I am not satisfied that it would be desirable to promote a Bill, as suggested. The right remedy is to obtain proper treatment and disposal of the sewage, and my efforts have been directed to that end. Two of the large local authorities are now spending large sums in improving their disposal works, and a Bill is now before Parliament for taking the sewage1 of two others into the London main drainage system. When these improvements have been effected, conditions should be very much better.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me how long he expects it will be before this nuisance is abated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question, I will try to obtain that information.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal to take the Leyton sewage into the London system is at a much lower spot altogether than where this terrible pollution is taking place, and will he cast about for some other means of dealing with it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my right hon. Friend will read my answer, he will see that that is not the only method by which I hope pollution may be dealt with.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATES, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the accumulated arrears of rates for the city of Sheffield now amount to £536,298; that during the year ending 31st March, 1925, 47,180 summonses were issued for non-payment of rates; that the guardians' debt now amounts, for unemployment alone, to £698,000; and that the additional burden imposed upon the city by the Regulations of the Minister of Labour amount to £600 per week; and whether the Government propose to grant substantial subsidies to this black spot?

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I can add nothing to the reply given to a similar question put by the hon. Member on the 26th March last.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. HANNON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the subdivision of gross and actual income brought under review under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act for the years 1922–23 and 1924–25, under the various headings recognised by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I would refer the hon. Member, as regards the year 1922–23, to the details contained in Table 66 of the 67th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Command Paper 2227), and the paragraph which precedes it. I regret that corresponding information in respect of the year 1924–25 is not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — SILK DUTIES.

Mr. HARRIS: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is going to appoint an advisory committee representing the London textile trade to advise him on the administration of the Silk Duties, and particularly the drawbacks for the port of London; and whether a testing office is to be opened for the London area?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am informed that various trade committees are already in existence for the purpose of considering various aspects of the Silk Duties, and the Customs are in closest touch with them. This arrangement is working satisfactorily and, as at present advised, I see no reason for any more formal machinery. As regards the last part of the question, any analysis of silk goods that may be necessary for official purposes will be carried out at the Government laboratory, and no new testing office will be opened.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not proposed to set up an advisory committee in Manchester, and a special testing office there; and is not London still the largest port in the Kingdom, and entitled to equal treatment with Manchester and other textile centres?

Mr. GUINNESS: I should like notice of the question about Manchester. I do not know whether any decision has been come to.

Mr. HARRIS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to appoint such a committee for Manchester?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am not aware of that. I understood him to say that the matter was under consideration.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did promise an advisory committee, that a committee has been appointed in Manchester, and that in an important centre like Bradford no committee has been appointed, and merchants and manufacturers are asking when it will be appointed?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVEENMENT LINEN (SALE).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the pleas in the case of Martin v. Lowry, in the King's Bench Division, in which it is admitted that a purchaser made a net profit of £1,900,000 upon the re-sale of the Government's stores of unbleached linen; whether he is aware that the stock was sold by the Aircraft Disposal Department during a period of linen shortage; if he can say how the price was arrived at and if there was no public auction; and if he is prepared to lay Papers upon this transaction before the House?

Mr. GUINNESS: My attention has been called to this case. I find that the late Ministry of Munitions were faced with the problem of disposing of some 45 million yards of aeroplane linen. Having regard to the heavy cost of storage and administration, and to the saving of interest, they accepted, in June, 1919, after many efforts to dispose of the linen, both in small lots and wholesale, the best offer which entailed clearance of the whole amount in six months. There was no auction. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there was no auction in the case of that transaction, which has resulted in a profit of almost £2,000,000 to the purchaser, and is it not the case that the Belfast linen manufacturers were at that time suffering from a shortage of material?

Mr. GUINNESS: I understand there is a very restricted market for purchases on this enormous scale, and Ministers did their best to get offers from various people who were interested. After selling a certain amount of the linen in small quantities, they found it best, on their then information, to accept this offer.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman examined the papers in the case? Has he seen that this offer was accepted on the basis that only £50,000 would be taken until the purchaser was able to sell sufficient stocks to pay the Government his £50,000?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have seen the papers. I do not really think the fact that the purchaser, entirely by his own exertions, was able to make a large profit, is fully relevant to the wisdom of the decision of the Ministry of Munitions, seeing that in many other transactions which they carried out at the same time the purchasers were left with very heavy losses.

Mr. DUFF COOPER: What was the purchase price?

Mr. GUINNESS: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AIRCRAFT (NAMES).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, following the example of the Navy, he will consider the suggestion that the larger planes and, in due course, British airships bear names instead of numbers, and commemorate, among others, pioneers in the aeronautical world?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): My hon. Friend's suggestion will be favourably considered as regards airships, but it could not, I think, be applied satisfactorily to aeroplanes, since it would be almost impossible to differentiate between them on the basis of size, and the types, moreover, are of great variety and are constantly being modified and changed.

REVIEWS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can see
his way to arrange occasional reviews of the Royal Air Force in other parts of Great Britain as well as at Hendon to enable many who are unable to visit London to see something of British aerial development?

Sir P. SASSOON: The majority of the aerodromes of the Royal Air Force are at present so far removed from the larger centres of population that it would be difficult to carry out the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's question. It will, however, be carefully borne in mind and I hope that it may be possible to put it into practice when further progress has been made with the preparation of the new stations which are being opened in connection with the scheme of Home Defence and the development of the Auxiliary Air Force.

Captain BRASS: Is it not a fact that these pageants or demonstrations are very excellent practice for the Air Force?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes. They are the culmination of their training.

Captain BRASS: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of persons who attended the recent Air Force demonstration at Hendon; and how many machines were employed?

Sir P. SASSOON: The attendance at the Aerial Display on Saturday last is roughly estimated at 100,000, but it is impossible to give an accurate figure until the returns from the advance booking agencies throughout London have been received. The number of machines employed was 137.

Captain BRASS: Is it not a fact that this is the largest number that has ever attended Hendon and the finest demonstration the Air Force has ever made, and that they are to be heartily congratulated?

Mr. THURTLE: Did any casualties take place at this pageant?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, there was none.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether efforts have been made to discover the individual who prevented the wireless signals being received during the Aerial Pageant; and
whether, if these efforts are successful, the individual in question will be dealt with by the legal authority?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am afraid that owing to technical difficulties nothing can now be done to trace the individual responsible for this very regrettable interference.

AIR MAIL SERVICE TO INDIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made in the development of a regular air mail to India; when he expects an air mail service to India to be put into regular operation; what portion of the route will be covered by air and what proportion by other means of transport; and what is the expected saving in time?

Sir P. SASSOON: In reply to the first and second parts of the question, I am not yet in a position to add to my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hallam on 11th June. As regards the third part, it is intended that the Kantara-Karachi portion of the route should be covered by air. As regards the last part, the saving in time is expected to be from five to seven days on correspondence to different parts of India.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When does the hon. Gentleman expect the service to begin?

Sir P. SASSOON: Civil undertakings have been asked to provide schemes for a weekly service between Kantara and Karachi, and we hope it will begin, without any delay, at a very early date.

COMMERCIAL AIR MACHINES.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what increase of commercial air machines have obtained in Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and the United States of America for years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?

Sir P. SASSOON: Figures for the number of commercial machines maintained at the dates specified are not readily available, but I am endeavouring to obtain the information asked for by my hon. Friend, and will communicate with him shortly on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL LEVY.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the poverty and want existing to-day as a result of unemployment, the Government is prepared to impose a levy on capital for relieving distress amongst the unemployed?

Mr. GUINNESS: The answer is in the negative, a levy on capital being, in the opinion of the Government, certain to increase unemployment.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the Minister realise that the capital of to-day was earned by the working classes yesterday; and as it is now badly needed by the working classes to relieve hunger and distress, are not they morally entitled to help themselves?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not a time for debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. MacANDREW: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to prevent Entertainments Duty being charged at agricultural shows at which, on account of unsuitable weather, no forms of entertainment subject to the tax are carried on; if he will give instructions for repayment of Entertainments Duty charged to the Kilmarnock Farmers' Society on account of their show held on 18th April, at which no entertainments subject to the tax took place owing to unsuitable weather; and is he aware that it is impossible to claim exemption 14 days in advance, because the entertainments can only be cancelled on the morning of the show should the weather be unsuitable for them?

Mr. GUINNESS: The statutory Regulations made under the provisions of the law require that where exemption from Entertainments Duty is claimed, application for exemption must be made not less than 14 days beforehand. There is no authority in the law to provide for repayment of the duty on the ground that at the last moment some alteration was made in the programme of the entertainment which brought it within the scope of one of the statutory exemptions. It is assumed that the Entertainments Duty which was charged to the public has not been refunded to them owing to the abandonment of the sports.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE BONUS.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of merging the bonus payable to Government Civil Service employés with their pay so as to fix both emoluments and pensions on a more substantial basis?

Mr. GUINNESS: The question of substituting inclusive scales of pay for the present pay plus bonus arrangements will receive full consideration. As at present advised, however, I am not satisfied that the change would appropriately be made at the present time.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman promise to consider the matter at once?

Mr. GUINNESS: We are keeping it under close observation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMINISTRATION OF AUSTRIAN PROPERTY.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the reason for the long delay on the part of the Administrator of Austrian Property in respect of the claims of Polish citizens for the release of their sequestrated shares; and when he expects that the administrator will complete his investigations and place such Polish citizens in a position to recover their property?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been asked to reply to this question. In the majority of the cases of the kind referred to in the question the securities have been released. In a number of cases, however, the applicants have been unable to identify their securities, and it appears that they form part of general depots held in this country on behalf of Austrian banks, and no specific allocation was ever made to the applicants. In no case had the depot holders any knowledge of the claimants and, in the majority of cases, the total claims exceed the amounts of the depots. An agreement has been come to with the Austrian banks which, it is hoped, will expedite the allocation of these securities, but the necessary information to enable such allocation to be made has not yet been supplied by those banks.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES (FOREIGN MACHINERY).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the absence of any restriction, how much foreign machinery has actually been obtained from abroad by the three Van Rossum sugar-beet factories?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): The total approximate commitments of all beet-sugar factories in respect of foreign plant and machinery were included in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on the 15th ultimo. I am inquiring into the amount which has actually been delivered to the factories referred to in my hon. Friend's question and will communicate with him when my inquiries are complete.

Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department giving every possible opportunity to British manufacturers to avail themselves of the order before offers are made to foreign manufacturers?

Mr. WOOD: Oh, yes, I can assure the hon. Member that is always done.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not a fact that this man Van Rossum is a Dutchman who is getting this grant from the Government and being subsidised?

Mr. WOOD: That is undoubtedly true. I am not sure whether it actually arises out of the question, but I have always understood that one of the very objects of any effort at protecting any home industry was to induce the foreigner to come and erect factories in this country.

Mr. STEPHEN: How much foreign capital is being invested in these companies which are being subsidised by the British taxpayer?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put down.

Viscountess ASTOR: Are not these sentiments very uninternational?

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. SPENCER: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the country is now entirely free from any known foot-and-mouth disease; and what was the date and place of the last outbreak?

Mr. WOOD: I am pleased to say that the country is now entirely free from foot-and-mouth disease, and all general restrictions have been removed. The last outbreak occurred at Rugby on the 7th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRUSHES (IMPORTS).

Sir H. CROFT: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity and value of brushes imported into Great Britain during the last 12 months for which Returns are complete?

Colonel APPLIN: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and value of brushes imported into the United Kingdom in the last six months of 1924 and the first six months of 1925?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As the answer contains some figures, my hon. and gallant Friends will perhaps allow me to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the hon. Member say whether in the figures to be supplied in answer to the question he can state the proportion of these brushes that are made in foreign prisons?

Mr. SAMUEL: I should like notice of that question. If the hon. Member would like me to get the figures, I will do so.

Following is the answer:

The total quantity and value of brooms and brushes imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the period specified has been as follows:


period
Quantity imported.
Declared Value thereof.



Dozens.
£


Twelve months ended May, 1925.
3,946,116
778,553

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Sir H. CROFT: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the steel industry in this country is regarded as important and efficient; and whether it is subjected to serious foreign competition?

Sir B. CHADWICK: As the hon. and gallant Member will be aware from the statement made in the Debate on Monday
last by the Minister of Labour, the position of the iron and steel industry has been referred for inquiry to the Civil Research Committee, and I do not think I can usefully make any statement on the subject at this stage.

Sir H. CROFT: Does this industry satisfy the requirements to enable it to be considered under the Safeguarding of Industries Act? On whose decision was it that the application did not go forward?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I should say that it is for the purpose of ascertaining that very question that the matter has been referred to the Civil Research Committee.

Sir N. MOORE: Will the hon. Member tell us the names of the Civil Research Committee?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not know them at the moment.

Captain BENN: Is it not the duty of the Board of Trade to decide whether or not an industry is important, efficient and subject to severe foreign competition, and, if so, why have not they decided in this case?

Mr. HANNON: Can the hon. Member say when the Civil Research Committee will take this important matter in hand?

Sir B. CHADWICK: It is a Cabinet Committee. It is already appointed, and I should imagine that it will take this important matter in hand without any delay.

Mr. DIXEY: We were told the other day that a Committee had refused the application. Can the hon. Member say what Committee have refused this application?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not know that any Committee has refused the application. It is at the discretion of the Government to refer a matter of this kind to the Civil Research Committee, and they have done so.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can the hon. Member say whether in this inquiry the Civil Research Committee are appointing experts to assist them?

Mr. J. JONES: Is the rumour true that is being circulated in the House, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a member of this Committee?

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions must be put on the Paper.

Sir H. CROFT: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity, in tons, of steel goods imported into Great Britain during the last completed 12 months for which returns are available?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The quantity of steel goods imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the 12 months ended May, 1925, so far as the particulars are available, was 2,044,730 tons.' This total, however, is inclusive of some manufactures of iron, which are not distinguished in the monthly trade accounts from similar manufactures of steel.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that, if these steel goods had been manufactured in this country, it would have meant 6,000,000 tons of coal would have been required?

Sir N. MOORE: Nine million tons.

Sir H. CROFT: Nine million tons?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member say what proportion of this steel which has been imported has been manufactured by means of coal dumped from. England into the exporting steel countries?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question cannot be answered without notice. It is a complicated matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Foreign Secretary say what business will be taken next week?

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: On Monday, we shall take the Board of Trade Vote. After 11 o'clock we hope the House will be willing to give, without any prolonged discussion, the Second Reading of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill. We understand that this is a Bill which is practically an agreed Bill, and we hope, without any undue demands on the Members, that it may be taken after 11 o'clock.

On Tuesday, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill.

Wednesday: Supply—Ministry of Labour Vote.

Thursday: Supply—India Office Vote.

Friday: Unemployment Insurance Money Resolution Committee, and other Orders to be announced later.

Mr. MacDONALD: In regard to the business on Tuesday, the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill—I must apologise for not having given private notice of this question—do not the Government take the view that it is necessary that we should have an actuarial report upon this Bill, because so much depends upon the actuarial estimates as to what effect the Bill has upon the position of the fund. Would the Government be good enough to circulate an actuarial report on this Bill before we discuss it on Tuesday?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not been personally informed, but I understand from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Betterton) that an actuarial report will be published before the debate.

Mr. MacDONALD: Can we have it on Monday?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I think so.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend will undertake to do his best to expedite the publication for Monday.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Would it be possible to get some statement of that kind before we discuss the contributions under the Pensions Bill? It seems to me impossible for us to discuss that Bill properly without knowing the bearing of the figures in the Unemployment Insurance Bill upon the liability which the country undertakes under the Pensions Bill. Would it be possible to get some estimate of what the expense will be, and what will be the bearing of the other Bill upon the contributions in the Bill now in Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I do not follow the question of my right hon. Friend. He is referring now to a different Bill If my right hon. Friend will be good enough to do so, perhaps it would be better for him to address his
question to the Minister in charge of the Bill, and discuss with him what should be done.

Mr. SPENCER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to put down the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Vote before the rising of the House?

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that that depends rather upon the conduct or attitude of the Opposition or Oppositions than upon the wishes of the Government.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has not understood my question. May I ask the Minister of Health, who is fully informed upon the subject and who knows the bearing of the question which I put, whether it would be possible for the House to have information as to what will be the actuarial effect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill upon the estimates of the Government in regard to the Pensions Bill now in Committee, before we discuss the contributions?

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: The Unemployment Insurance Bill does not affect the Pensions Bill. It has nothing to do with it. It is true that the reduced contributions which we propose under the Unemployment Insurance Bill may be taken into consideration when we are talking about the burdens and the effects on industry, but we have already settled the financial arrangements of the Pensions Bill by the Financial Resolution.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In debate the right hon. Member said that the benefits of the Pension Bill would be given for a reduced contribution from the employer and from the employé, leaving the House to suppose that the reductions made in the other Bill were made specifically for the purpose of the Pensions Bill, of which he is in charge. Therefore, does he not consider that the point is of very great moment, and that it is very necessary for the consideration of the Bill that we should have some information as to what will be the effect upon the pensions of the new unemployment insurance proposals?

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: No further information is required. All the information with regard to contributions is already at the disposal of the House.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, and on any Private Business set down for consideration at a quarter-past Eight o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and

Means, be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, the Proceedings on any such Private Business may be taken after half-past Nine of the Clock.

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 124.

Division No. 251.]
AYES.
[3.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dixey, A. C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Agg-Gardner, Bt. Hon. Sir James T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Albery, Irving James
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Elveden, Viscount
McLean, Major A.


Astor, Viscountess
England, Colonel A.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Atkinson, C.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Balniel, Lord
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Meyer, Sir Frank


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.
Fermoy, Lord
Moles, Thomas


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Finburgh, S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bennett, A. J.
Fleming, D. P.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Berry, Sir George
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bethell, A.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Betterton, Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nuttall, Ellis


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gates, Percy
Oakley, T.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Blundell, F. N.
Goff, Sir Park
Penny, Frederick George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grace, John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brass, Captain W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Preston, William


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hammersley, S. S.
Raine, W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, E.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Haslam, Henry C.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brown Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bullock, Captain M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Burman, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Salmon, Major I.


Burton Colonel H. W.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Campbell E. T.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Herberts. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Savery, S. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Homan, C. W. J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Iliffe Sir Edward M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jephcott, A. R.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cohen Major J. Brunei
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cooper, A. Duff
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Cope, Major William
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Couper, J. B.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Knox, Sir Alfred
Templeton, W. P.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crook, C. W.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Looker, Herbert William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley, L. R.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Watts, Dr. T.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Wells, S. R.
Wolmer, Viscount
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Womersley, W. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Wragg, Herbert


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)



Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Major Hennessy and Captain




Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardle, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Rose, Frank H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sitch, Charles H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Wiggins, William Martin


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
Warne.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation." [Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the construction of a tunnel under the River Mersey between Liverpool and Birkenhead; and for other purposes." [Mersey Tunnel Bill [Lords.]

MERSEY TUNNEL BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

Orders of the Day — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill further considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
During Question Time, a matter was raised which in our judgment is of the very greatest importance to the Members of the Committee in the consideration of the Bill now before us. The point that was put to the Leader of the House and to the Minister of Health was that the position which will arise under the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which was printed and made available yesterday, will have a very great effect upon the matters which we are discussing in relation to this contributory pensions scheme. We want to submit that it is imperative, in the interests of efficiency and in the interests of the country, before we proceed with any further discussion of the controversial matters in this Bill, and especially in regard to its effect on industry, that we should have much fuller particulars of the finance of the other Bill, which, in spite of what the Minister said at Question Time, has a direct bearing upon this Bill. The Minister, in reply to a question just now, said—I do not want to misquote him; I am speaking from memory, and, if I am wrong, he will correct me—that what he said yesterday in Debate would really not change the position at all and that the finance of the Unemployment Insurance Bill was quite separate. I want to refresh his memory from the OFFICIAL REPORT as to what he actually did say yesterday. He said:
All that we are concerned about here, I submit, is what reduction in the contributions by employer and employed is provided in the new Bill "—
That is the Unemployment Insurance Bill—
and how far will that relieve the burden, or the alleged burden, which is going to be put upon industry by our proposals under this Bill.
That is the contributory Pensions Bill.
The net result of the new proposal is that all the immense benefits which are provided under this Bill will accrue for a weekly payment, in respect of a man, of 2d. by the employer and 3d. by the man himself, and, in the case of a woman, of 1d. in each case. Therefore "—
said the Minister to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson)—
I do not think the hon. Member can say that is a crushing burden."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1925; col. 2572, Vol. 185.]
I think that indicates, at least from our point of view, that the Minister is concerned at every stage in this Bill with the relief to be given to industry under the other Bill put down for Second Reading next Tuesday in its effect upon our consideration of the present proposal. Let me also put this to the Minister. We have had a print of the Bill to deal with the unemployment insurance question, and, although we have not yet had an opportunity of examining it from an actuarial point of view, we have had time enough to see that there may be very grave doubt as to whether, when the Financial Resolution is disposed of, and when the Bill itself is disposed of, the actual financial provisions will be exactly the same as they are now. We cannot at all guarantee that the relief to industry, which it is said will Be given under the Unemployment Insurance Bill, will, in fact, be the same as in the printed provisions of the Bill at the moment. So far as we can tell from a, cursory examination of the Bill, there is to be a reduction in the weekly unemployment insurance contribution in respect of men of 3d., but the increase in the Government's contribution for men is only l¼d. In the case of women, there is to be a total deduction of 2d., but the increase in the Government's contribution is only to be ¾d. In the case of juveniles, the reduction is 1½d., but the increase in the Government's contribution is only ¾d. Until we have had full particulars of the actuarial basis upon which the Government have drawn up the new Bill, which it is said is going to save industry in relation to the burdens of this Bill, we cannot tell at all whether the House of Commons will be prepared to pass the financial provisions of that other Bill.
Under the proposal of the Unemployment Insurance Bill—and we may have
to correct this when we get the actuary's statement, and that is why we want to report Progress—so far as one can tell from the scanty information given to the Committee, there will be a reduction in contributions of insured persons of, say, between £800,000 and £900,000, and the increased contributions from the Government will not be more than, roughly, £310,000. Unless, therefore, there be some further explanation, it would appear that the House will be asked, in relation to the finance of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, even upon the basis of the figures given by the Minister of Labour of the unemployed on 10th June, to pass a scheme which will increase in the first year the deficiency on the Unemployment Insurance Fund by nearly £500,000. It seems to me that when the House of Commons comes down to a detailed examination of the financial proposals of the Unemployment Insurance Bill it is quite likely that it will not be prepared to pass them in their present form, and that all the suggestions of the Minister of Health with regard to the relief to industry in relation to the burden of the contributory pensions scheme, which will arise from the new unemployment insurance proposals, may fall to the ground because of a subsequent decision of the House of Commons. It might be that that condition of doubt would be obviated if this Committee were furnished in advance with the full actuarial report upon which the Government have drawn up the financial proposals of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and, on those grounds, I think we are not only protecting the privileges of the House of Commons, but we are also trying to safeguard the interests of industry in the country as a whole in moving to report Progress in order that we may get complete and detailed financial information.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: The Government do not deny that there is a close relation between these two Bills, the Unemployment Insurance Bill and this Pensions Bill. Both impose a charge upon the worker and the employer, and we cannot decide what our views on this Bill should be without being certain what the charges under the other Bill are to be. That is obvious, I do not know what Parliamentary opportunity we shall have to discuss, as we ought to discuss,
both proposals at once. I do not know what general proposal could be made, but I have one suggestion which I would like to make. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not secure the attendance of the Minister of Labour when Clause 9, which governs the contributions, is under discussion, so that we may put questions to him and be informed what his attitude and intentions are on what after all is a matter common to both proposals—namely, the adequacy of the contributions which are going to be imposed. If the right hon. Gentleman would concede that point, I think it might be a. reasonable advance towards meeting what we all regard as a difficult situation.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): There is really no substantial basis for the difficulty which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) and by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). The finance of each Bill is absolutely distinct. The one is entirely independent of the other. So far as the financial provisions of this particular Bill are concerned, they are governed by the Financial Resolution. The only connection between the two is that, in considering the argument as to the burdens on industry, it may be clearly stated on behalf of the Government that the proposals in the Unemployment Insurance Bill will have the effect upon the contributions which are taken from the employers and the employed of reducing the total burden of all the insurance charges upon industry. But to say that we should not discuss this Bill until we have further information as to what the Exchequer contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Bill are to be and what the House of Commons may be pleased to do about the Financial Resolution of that Bill appears to me to be unreasonable. As regards the attendance of the Minister of Labour, I shall be very pleased to convey to my right hon. Friend the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member. I cannot give any undertaking that he will be here, but, if he finds it possible to do so, I am sure that he will be pleased to attend to answer any questions which the hon. and gallant Gentleman may wish to put to him and which may be germane to the discussion.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think the Government, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman, are largely to blame for the confusion in which the Committee finds itself with regard to this Measure. May I remind him again what he said yesterday. He said:
The net result of the new proposal is that all the insurance benefits which are provided under this Bill will accrue for a weekly payment, in respect of a man, of 2d. by the employer and 2d. by the man himself, and, in respect of a woman, of 1d. in each caw."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July. 1925; col. 2572, Vol. 185.]
If these words mean anything, they mean that a reduction is being made practically in the contributions by industry, both employers and employés, for the benefits that are to accrue to the pensioners under the Bill which we are now about to discuss. If they do not mean that, what do they mean? That is the ordinary English meaning, as I interpret them, of the words that I have just quoted.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is no authority on the ordinary English meaning.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not an authority if these words do not mean what they convey to the minds, I am sure, of 99 per cent. of the Members of the Committee, and what they would convey to the right hon. Gentleman if he could look impartially at the meaning of his own words. I am going to submit, further, that a representative of the Treasury should be present. Eight from the outset the Government have associated these two things. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his Budget, went out of his way to advertise the benefits that were to come from this Measure as part of the concessions made to the working classes by the Government. This is mainly a question of finance. We are entitled to have a representative of the Treasury present. I can see that the Government are merely juggling with statistics. When it suits them they say, "We are going to break down the burden on industry with regard to unemployment insurance." They are challenged on that, as they can rightly be by those who say, "How can you hope to break down the burden on industry for unemployment insurance at a time when unemployment is so rapidly increasing?" When unem-
ployment figures are going up at the rate of 20,000 a week the burden on the Unemployment Insurance Fund is going up at a corresponding rate.
We are entitled to know how the Government are to perform the miracle of feeding an increasing army of 20,000 a week on less money. The miracle of the loaves and fishes is going to be left in the background as an old-fashioned performance by the wonderful financial magician who is now representing the Government on the Treasury Bench. The danger with which we are faced is this— that in order to justify the claims for this Bill by the Minister of Health, we are asked to bring the Unemployment Insurance Fund into a condition of insolvency, and the Government having secured the passage of this Bill through the House, we shall probably be asked to vote a further sum to make good the raid which we have made on the Unemployment Insurance Fund in order to justify the position of the Government. In these circumstances it is only reasonable that we should move to report progress.

Mr. HANNON: It seems to me and to many other hon. Members on this side that this is a piece of sheer obstruction.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order Is it not within your power, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, to decide what is obstruction? If this Motion is allowed by you, is not that sufficient answer to the hon. Member's suggestion?

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Seldom do hon. Members opposite take part in the Debate. Is it in order for them to say that someone is guilty of obstruction?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I know for myself what is obstruction, but I cannot decide for other hon. Members.

Mr. THURTLE: The hon. Member has used the word "obstruction." Has it not been ruled that the word "obstruction" is an unparliamentary expression?

Captain BENN: For the information of Members, will you be so good as to give a ruling as to whether a charge of obstruction is not an unparliamentary observation?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: A ruling has been given in the past that the word "obstruction" could not be used.

Mr. HANNON: The Deputy-Chairman, having ruled that the expression is unparliamentary, I withdraw it at once, but that does not prevent me from saying that this is a wanton waste of the time of the House. The Motion is intended to draw attention to the relationship between the Bill to be introduced on Friday, and the Bill now under discussion. Surely, as the Minister has made clear again and again, the argument brought forward establishing the relationship between the Bills was only to prove that the concession in the one case would be helpful in discharging obligations in the other. No one is more anxious than I am to see the burden on British industry removed, and no one could have been more concerned than I was at the original provisions outlined in the Budget speech of a new impost to be placed on industry. The Government have realised the seriousness of the situation, and are making a very important concession to industry. To take up the time of the House by trying to establish a legitimate connection between the two propositions is a simple waste of time, and I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whose subtle conception of exactitude in argument has always been so striking, should raise a point of that kind. The Unemployment Insurance Bill will stand on its merits when it comes before the House. The present Bill stands on its merits.

Mr. J. JONES: What are you standing on?

Mr. HANNON: On two Irish feet, the same as the hon. Member. The most astonishing thing of all is the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). He chides us with not taking more part in the Debates. If we have not done so, it is not from want of knowledge or experience. Hon. Members on the other side have not been able to provide the material for debate. These tactics for wasting time ought not to be adopted here when the country is fighting for its life. Every day that passes over our heads the difficulties of the manufacturer and of the employer become more and more acute. It really is play-acting with the time of Parliament to delay a
Measure of this kind. The real secret of all this opposition is that hon. Members opposite had not an opportunity of producing a similar Bill, and had not the competence to produce such a scheme. I appeal to the Committee to bring this Debate to a close and to proceed with the Bill.

Major HORE-BELISHA: It is my pleasant duty to congratulate the first Conservative Member to take part in this discussion. I hope it is a good omen, and that many of the same party will follow his excellent example. If it is my duty to congratulate the hon. Member on his speech, I wonder what the Federation of British Industries will have to say of the eloquence of its representative.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. I submit that that is a most improper observation for the hon and gallant Member to make. I am no more a representative of the Federation of British Industries than are scores of other hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the hon. Member entitled to accuse other hon. Members on his own side of being representatives of the Federation of British Industries?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I accept the hon. Member's explanation that he is no more a representative of the Federation of British Industries than scores of his colleagues. I was merely alluding to him as the most distinguished among them. This is a perfectly serious Motion. The whole of industry in this country is awaiting with interest information as to what burden is to be cast upon it. That is not in dispute. In arguing the first Clause of this Bill yesterday, the Minister of Health said in effect, "You are going to get all these additional benefits for twopence, because, although we are imposing a contribution of fourpence upon employers and employed, we are at the same time taking steps in another Bill to reduce the dead weight of that burden." Therefore, the two Measures are inseparably interrelated. Why this policy of secretiveness? What is the reason for this concealment? The Minister knew, when we were discussing the first Amend.
ment on the first Clause, exactly what proposals were to be made by the Government in the Unemployment Insurance Bill. He would not vouchsafe them to the House. Someone vouchsafed them to the "Daily Mail." We have to learn from the "Daily Mail" what the Minister of Health refuses to impart to us. That is an insult to the traditions of this House.
What I want to know about the actuary's report, which is to throw further light in the matter, is this: Is that report in the possession of the "Daily Mail"? Has the right hon. Gentleman given that information to the "Daily Mail"? There can be no possible reason for not treating the Committee with complete frankness. The Government knows exactly what its proposals are, what the total imposition upon industry will be, and exactly how those figures are arrived at. Why is it that the Minister cannot rise in his place and give us the information which is vitally necessary in order to enable us to argue the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman yesterday said, "I have reduced the total burden on industry by two-pence." He has, of course, done nothing of the kind. What we expected was that the payments which have to be made during the period of deficiency would be abandoned by the Government, and that would have given the benefits of the Bill which is now under discussion to the contributors without calling upon them to make any contribution whatsoever. We could have had the whole of the benefits under this Bill without paying one extra farthing. Indeed, we could have had many more benefits, because the difference between the normal contribution taken under the Unemployment Insurance Act and the contributions during the deficiency period is 1s. 1d., and the total concession given by the Minister of Health is 6d. Therefore we should have had 7d. to play with and industry would have been relieved, but instead of relieving industry the right hon. Gentleman has placed a further burden on the rates, has increased the waiting period and he is not giving any concession of value to industry. He is not even giving us the facts and figures upon which he has based this concession. Is he keeping us
in suspense while hi is negotiating with the Federation of British Industries. If he is doing that, and if the communiques of the latest negotiations are to appear in the Press every day, he is not treating the House of Commons with fairness. This is the place in which to impart information. We are entitled as representatives of the people to know what this burden is to be. Industry is in a critical condition. It has a right to the information and I appeal to the Minister to give us what should have been given to us before now and to abandon this policy of secrecy and concealment to deal more frankly with the Committee and to relieve industry, not only of this burden but of the anxiety which he has perpetuated by refusing industry the information to which it is entitled.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: It is about time that this farce was ended. Last night we had to sit here for nearly an hour and a-half listening to this kind of obstruction —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—to this sheer waste of time.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: On a point of Order. Did not you, Sir, rule a few minutes ago that the word "obstruction" should not be used?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member substituted another term.

Mr. SPENCER: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that to substitute the term "sheer waste of time" is a reflection upon your ruling?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There are quite enough un-Parliamentary terms already, without adding to them.

Major OLIVER STANLEY: Did not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the late Cabinet, himself use the word "obstruction"?

Mr. THOMPSON: The fact remains that last night we wasted an hour and a-half of valuable time on a Motion of this kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, that is my opinion, and it is the opinion of many other hon. Members. I wish to say also that there was not a single Member on the Liberal Benches in the early hours of this morning, whilst we have been giving close attention all this
week to these discussions and trying to carry into effect a very valuable social reform. Are we now to be called upon to spend another hour this afternoon in wasting time? [HON. MEMBERS: "You are helping to do it!"]

Viscountess ASTOR: Then you admit it?

Mr. THOMPSON: We have been sitting here attempting to help on a constructive Measure by discreet silence. Many of the representatives on these benches feel that we ought to enter an emphatic protest against the policy which is being adopted by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I fear that the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the opposite benches have only made this Debate more difficult. Nobody on this side of the House has any desire but to help the Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR: Since this Bill is looked upon by you as an insult to the working people, how can you honestly help it along?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No Member of the House can deny that, so far as we have gone, the Bill is much better than it was, and it merely adds to the difficulties if hon. Members opposite are to have the word "obstruction" coming so trippingly off their tongues, or if they substitute for it another term which they mean to be equally offensive. This Bill is going to affect a very large number of people, and the suggestion that we want to hinder its passage is absurd, but there are many points to which careful attention must be given.

Mr. BASIL PETO: Are we to be asked to listen to that from the Front Opposition Bench when a few minutes ago we were told by an ex-Minister, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), "Very well, then; now we will get on with the obstruction"? It is on record.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The accusation has constantly been hurled across the Floor by Conservative Members that we are engaged on a deliberate policy of holding up the Bill, but the result of the persistent efforts that we have made so far has been to improve the Bill. We have now arrived at a stage where there is a muddle as
between unemployment insurance and pensions, but it is not a muddle of our making. In the early hours of yesterday morning we had a similar muddle with regard to the administration of health insurance and unemployment insurance and this question has arisen because the Government itself has chosen to drag in by the ears the question of unemployment insurance. To-day we are in the position of not knowing exactly where we are. During the Second Reading Debate every time a figure was quoted on these benches some hon. Member opposite asked whether it was vouched for actuarially. To-day we are faced with new proposals which have a bearing upon this Bill yet we are left without any actuarial report. Nobody knows exactly what are the foundations of the Government calculations and we are not satisfied that industry is going to gain any benefit by this juggling as between one Bill and another and between one set of contributions and another. It does not facilitate business to treat Members of this Committee in the cavalier way in which they have been treated. We have asked for information, we have put forward points of criticism, but we have got no reply. That does not tend to facilitate the passage of the Bill, and I submit we have reached a point now where we ought to be put in possession of information which will enable us to form a judgment on one of the most important features of the Bill. If ever a Motion to report Progress was justified I submit the Motion now before the Committee is justified.

Mr. J. JONES: I cannot enter into those mathematical details of which expert jugglers in figures, like some of my hon. Friends, are capable. The only figures I have seen during the past few days are the figures sitting opposite. Since the fire at Madame Tussauds most of the occupants seem to have escaped here.

Mr. DIXEY: Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman to compare Members of this distinguished House to the residents of Madame Tussauds?

Mr. JONES: I did not make any such reference at all. I only wish they were so distinguished. Those of us who are happy in our ignorance, always want to know something, and during these Debates, so far as I have been able to attend to them—[HON. MEMBERS:
"Asleep!"] It is a good job I am able to go asleep, because if I remained awake, some of you would not have a chance of going asleep, and, after all, there is a limit to human endurance. I want you to remember that we are not here for fun. When it comes to the final analysis the people who will have to foot the bill are not the people who are talking sympathetically, but the people who produce the wealth of the country—the workers. When the final bill has to be footed, it is Phil Garlick who will have to foot it. We want to know where we are. You can tell us but you will not. [Interruption.] We can give you the facts but we cannot give you the brains to understand them. For two days we have asked for information and yet, in connection with a Bill of this character, involving great financial commitments, not one representative of the expert authority which ought to be able to give us the information we require has attended, and that has been the case practically all through the Debate. I suppose they are looking for figures somewhere else, and when we ask a question we are told that we are obstructing. When we move to report Progress we are obstructing.
I do not care whether you call it obstruction or not. Hon. Members opposite know that they belong to a party that knows how to obstruct better than ever we do, when it suits their purpose. Whenever any Government has tried to introduce legislation with which they did not agree, they have exhausted the possibilities of Parliamentary procedure in order to have their point of view put forward, and they have even broken Governments up. They went further, and they did not depend on this House to help them in their opposition, but they went to another place, and they got their master's voice to operate. They have threatened the King when they could not get their own way. We do not know how to oppose. We are babies in the matter of opposition, compared with hon. Members opposite. Whenever their interests have been attacked, they have not scrupled to exhaust the possibilities even of revolution. They have cut a king's head off in this country at one time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to put forward some reasons for reporting Progress.

Mr. JONES: The reason is because of the lack of information provided by the Government on a most important legislative proposition. One Bill is in progress, and the other is in the cradle, waiting to be adopted, but Dr. Barnardo has not arrived and Dr. Bodie is on the opposite benches. So far as we are concerned, we claim that we have no right to be asked to buy a pig in a poke, and that we have a right to know where we are going to be committed and what the financial commitments of this Bill are. [Interruption.] I have been committed before to-day, but I did not go there for selling drink to the Indians. I have one of the poorest constituencies in Great Britain, in which nearly half the adult workers are casual labourers. How are they going on under this financial proposition of the Government? By your new Bill that you are going to introduce next week, there will not be a guarantee of two days a week for those men. A large number of them are not even sure that they will get one day in a month, and where will they be under these financial propositions?
You may talk about your financial arrangements, but when you put a tax on the worker, you will have to find out his ability to pay. I am here to say that there are certain people in this country who are not in a position to pay these taxes on their weekly earnings, because, in the first place, they cannot get the employment to be able to pay them, and how are they going on, year in and year out, working as casual labourers, when they do not average three days a week even in normal times? How are they going on now in these times of depression? Come to the Victoria and Albert Docks, and I will show you ships lying idle, and barges empty, and men walking the streets, for month after month, unable to get a day's work. How will they stand under your Bills and financial propositions? You are trying to make the workers believe that you are going to do them good, but all that you are going to do is to do them for their goods, if they have got any.

Miss WILKINSON: rose—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Miss WILKINSON: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. I was on my feet, and I had been called by you, Captain FitzRoy, but as a Member on the other side, who had not previously spoken, also rose, I was quite willing to give way to him. I want to

ask you whether it is in order, if a Member has shown that courtesy, for a Minister to move the Closure when that Member has at last been called by you.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is in order for the Minister or any other Member of the House to move at any time, "That the Question he now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 132.

Division No. 252.]
AYES.
[4.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Albery, Irving James
Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Dixey, A. C.
Looker, Herbert William


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.


Astor, Viscountess
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Balniel, Lord
Elveden, Viscount
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain D.


Bennett, A. J.
Fielden, E. B.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Fleming, D. P.
Meller, R. J.


Berry, Sir George
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bethell, A.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Betterton, Henry B.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Birchall. Major J. Dearman
Gates, Percy
Moles, Thomas


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Blundell, F. N.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Goff, Sir Park
Neville, R. J.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brass, Captain W.
Grace, John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Briggs, J. Harold
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nuttall, Ellis


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oakley, T.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pennefather, Sir John


Bullock, Captain M.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Penny, Frederick George


Burman, J. B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Capt R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pilcher, G.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Preston, William


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raine, W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Ramsden, E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Christie, J. A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Remnant, Sir James


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Homan, C. W. J.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandon, Lord


Cope, Major William
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Couper, J. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shepperson, E. W.


Crook, C. W.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Skelton, A. N.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley. Major Guy M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lamb, J.Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Womersley, W. J.


Strickland, Sir Gerald
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Styles, Captain H. Walter
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watts, Dr. T.
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wells, S. R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Templeton, W. P.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Wragg, Herbert


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Captain Hacking and Lord Stanley.


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wise, Sir Fredric



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.


Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Rose, Frank H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sitch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, Barnet
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kirk wood, D.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Livingstone, A. M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gibbins, Joseph
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Westwood, J.


Greenall, T.
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.



Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harney, E. A.
Riley, Ben
Mr. Warne and Mr. Ben Smith.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 234.

Division No. 253.]
AYES.
[4.58 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buchanan, G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clowes, S.
Greenall, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cluse, W. S.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Ammon, Charles George
Connolly, M.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Groves, T.


Baker, Walter
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, T. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Barnes, A.
Day, Colonel Harry
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)


Barr J.
Dennison, R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dunnico, H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Benn Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hardle, George D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Harney, E. A.


Broad, F. A.
Gillett, George M.
Harris, Percy A.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montague, Frederick
Snell, Harry


Hayday, Arthur
Morris, R. H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hayes, John Henry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.
Stamford, T. W.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold
Stephen, Campbell


Hirst, G. H.
Palin, John Henry
Sutton, J. E.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, W.
Taylor, R. A.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Viant, S. P.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Riley, Ben
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kennedy, T.
Rose, Frank H.
Welsh, J. C.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Westwood, J.


Kenyon, Barnet
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Whiteley, W.


Lawson. John James
Sexton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lee, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Livingstone, A. M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lowth, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mackinder, W.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Windsor, Walter


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smillie, Robert
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


March, S.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)



Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Warne.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clarry, Reginald George
Haslam, Henry C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Albery, Irving James
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley,


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cooper, A. Duff
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Couper, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Astor, Viscountess
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crook, C. W.
Hong, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Balniel, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gansbro)
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Homan, C. W. J.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)


Bennett, A. J.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Dixey, A. C.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Berry, Sir George
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bethell, A.
Drewe, C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Betterton, Henry B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jephcott, A. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Elveden, Viscount
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Blundell, F. N.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lamb, J. Q.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.


Brass, Captain W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Briggs, J. Harold
Fermoy, Lord
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fleming, D. P.
Looker, Herbert William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bullock, Captain M
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lumley, L. R.


Burman, J. B.
Gates, Percy
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Campbell, E. T.
Goff, Sir Park
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grace, John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gretton, Colonel John
Margesson, Captain D.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grotrian, H. Brent
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Meller, R. J.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Christie, J. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.




Moreing, Captain A. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Neville, R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sandon, Lord
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Nuttall, Ellis
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Oakley T.
Savery, S. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


O'Connor T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Watts, Dr. T.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wells, S. R.


Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William
Shepperson, E. W.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Pennefather, Sir John
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Penny Frederick George
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smithers, Waldron
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Pilcher, G.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Womersley, W. J.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Preston William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Raine W.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Ramsden, E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wragg, Herbert


Remnant, Sir James
Templeton, W. P.



Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Captain Hacking and Major Cape.


Bill read a Second time, and committed.

CLAUSE 6.—(Special provisions as to additional allowances and widows' and orphans' pensions.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, after the word "is," to insert the words
or has before the commencement of this Act been.
As the Sub-section at present stands, it applies to cases which may arise in the future, but does not deal with the cases which have already arisen where a child, by order of the Court, has been removed from the custody of the mother, and my Amendment is to provide that in respect of those children who, before the passing of the Act, had been removed from the custody of the parent, an additional allowance shall be paid to the person to whose charge the child has been committed.

Sir H. SLESSER: It is right to say that we find the whole of Clause 6 absolutely objectionable, and we are going to oppose every proposed Amendment which extends the power of the Minister to decide whether an allowance shall go to the widow, or be diverted to some other person. We do not do this at all merely because this is an Amendment moved by the Minister, but we have in this Clause one of the very worst examples of bureaucracy which is conceivable. I have pointed out before how, day after day, we are increasing the power of the Government, and increasing the power of the State to interfere with
the private lives of individuals. Yesterday the question of whether people should marry or not was a matter which was left to the Minister, and now we are asked to give the Minister power to decide where the children of married people should reside, and under whose custody they should be. The Minister has the power to decide where the pension is to go.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman is really in error. If he looks at the Sub-section, he will see the Minister does not come into this part at all.

Sir H. SLESSER: I am explaining why it is we are opposing this Amendment. We decline to strengthen this Clause in any way. I am perfectly familiar with the purpose of the Clause. What I am pointing out is that this Clause gives, in one part, certain powers to the Court, and in other parts certain powers to the Minister himself, to decide as to the custody of the child—not the direct legal custody, but the power to decide whether the pension should go to the mother or anyone else, according to whether he is satisfied or not. In this Sub-section we are dealing with the order of the Court, but I am explaining that we refuse to give any facilities, because here you have got an entirely new principle. It may or may not be right that a competent tribunal—and the right hon. Gentleman will agree he is not a competent tribunal, because he is not a Court of law—should
decide where the custody should reside, but we will not submit without a struggle to the very worst type of servile Socialism being vested in a Minister of State, namely, the decision where the custody should reside.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not vested in me. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to read his brief a little more closely. There is no question of vesting discretionary power in the Minister, or anyone else. Once the child has been removed from the custody of the Court, the allowance is paid over to the person who is to look after the child.

Sir H. SLESSER: I am perfectly aware of that. I am attacking the whole principle of the Clause, because I shall probably be closured if I want to deal with the latter part at a later stage, and the treatment we have received makes it necessary to say at this stage what our objections are. I resent very much the suggestion that I am speaking from a brief, as if I were saying that in which I do not believe myself. I have always in this House fought for the liberty of the individual against the tyranny of the official. I do not believe in that kind of servile Socialism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, if it is not servile Socialism, it is Tory servile Socialism, or Tory servility without Socialism. If a Minister of State is to decide the matter of whether a child shall live with its parent or not, then I say there can be not a spark of liberty left in this House at all. We will do nothing to facilitate the passage of this Clause, and we, therefore, refuse either to agree to this Amendment or any subsequent Amendment which will give the Minister a power to interfere in private domestic matters. We failed to prevent him from interfering in private matrimonial affairs, and we now want to prevent him from dealing with the custody of children.

Captain BENN: There is a great deal in this Clause to which many on this side take great objection, but I do not understand there is any particular objection to this Amendment. The Amendment is this: If a child be put by the Court under the custody of somebody else, the allowance is paid to that somebody else. But there may be some children who have already been put under the charge of another person. What I want to ask the
Minister is, supposing this Amendment were not carried, who would get the allowance in respect of the child? I think the Minister's power under this Clause is too great, but supposing the Amendment be not carried, what person would receive the allowance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The person who would receive the allowance in that case would be the widow, the mother of the child.

Captain BENN: It would be a mother in respect of whom the Court had decided she was unfit to take care of the child. Then, so far as I am concerned, I do not oppose the Amendment.

Mr. SPENCER: The Court decides that a woman is not a suitable person for the custody of her child and that the child has to be handed over to some other person. This Amendment, I know, does not affect the allowance for the child to be given to the second person. Notwithstanding all that, the provision laid down in a subsequent Section is going to give the Minister the right to authorise the local authority to take over the custody of the child. The Sub-section goes on further to say that
the Minister, if satisfied that the allegations of the representation are true, and that it would be in the interest of the child so to do, may direct that the additional allowance or orphan's pension shall be paid to the person having; the charge of the child or to any other person approved by the Minister ….
It, therefore, means this, that notwithstanding the fact that the Court may decide that person A is not a suitable person to have the custody of the child, and may transfer that custody to person B, the Minister has the right to transfer the custody of the child from person B to person C. But our objection to this transfer is not confined to this particular aspect of the question. It is because we are looking at the question as a whole that we object to this procedure. Undoubtedly, if this particular Clause or Sub-section were the whole Clause, with nothing following, possibly we should have very little to say. But so far as we can read the Sub-section the Court is not to be the final arbiter in regard to the custody of the child, who may ultimately come under the supervision of the local authority. I should like the Minister to
give us some further information as to what exactly is to be the subsequent procedure following that I have mentioned.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not meet the objection—with which I entirely associate myself. It is palpably sound on this particular matter. I think I see what the Minister is aiming at in this partcular Amendment. It is dealing with children who already, before the coming into existence of this Act, happened to be in charge of some person, and whose fate, therefore, as having an award in that respect, has been decided. I would like to ask the Minister, would it not be possible to add some words making it possible for the mother of the child to be considered as the suitable person? Her claim might be reconsidered when she wishes to get some money for looking after the child. My experience is—and I have had a very large amount of experience in dealing with very poor people—that there are mothers who were considered unsuitable for looking after their children because they had not got the money to look after them.
Very frequently you get poor, vicious, immoral, drunken people—as you do in all classes of society—people who are very often unfitted to deal with, or to look after their children, because they are driven by poverty and the considerations incident thereto to behave in a very undesirable way, and in a way that parents of children ought not to behave. I believe one of the good features of giving pensions to widows and orphans will be that it will make it more possible for widows to look after their children. I am making a suggestion, that I hope the Minister will take quite seriously, when I say that I really believe the money given to the mother may be sufficient to enable her to look after her own children in a capable manner, and I hope the Minister may be able to make what I am suggesting possible.

Mr. HARNEY: The ex-Solicitor-General has made a point on the whole Clause which, I confess, I am rather disposed to think is right. Note in Subsection (1) that where by order of the Court the custody of the child is given to someone else, then the additional allowance paid to the mother shall be given to such person as the Court may
order; so that it is not taken out of the hands of the Court at all. What the Amendment does is to provide that, where by order of the Court or by any order that has been made, the custody of the child is in the hands of some person other than the mother, then the additional allowance shall also be dealt with by an order. That being so, I think there can be no objection to it. I really understood the objection taken by the ex-Solicitor-General was that now was a suitable time to use this as a lever to raise the broader question as to the extensive powers given to the Ministry of Health. If he is prepared to argue that power, I am prepared to argue the matter with him, but for the moment I do not see any objection to this Amendment.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sure that the Minister will already have learned the feeling of the Committee in regard to these powers over the children, whether given to the local authority or to the Ministry itself. I do ask the Minister to appreciate the difficulties with which we are confronted in this matter, for it is no use blinking our eyes to the facts as we see them. I am going to ask the Minister as to whether, in preparing this Clause, the Ministry have been in touch with the Ministry of Pensions? That Ministry, so far as I know, has had to deal with exactly the same type of cases that fall to be dealt with under this scheme. I had occasion to inquire into more than one case of the kind dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions, and I understand that the Ministry of Pensions have a scheme in hand dealing in a very humane way with the matter. I have no reason to doubt that the Ministry of Health, in everything they will have to do in these difficult circumstances—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. It might be for the convenience of the Committee that we should know what we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman opposite wishes to put a question about a matter which is dealt with in another part of the Clause. By the Amendment we are seeking to make provision in the first Sub-section of the Clause, which now applies in cases arising after the commencement of the Act, to cases which arose before the commencement of the Act. I put it to you, Captain FitzRoy, that the Committee is entirely our of order at the moment.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. Would not this matter be perfectly in order on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? But then the right hon. Gentleman rises and moves the Closure.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It has been possible on previous Amendments to have a general discussion on the whole Clause on the first Amendment, but I do not think such a discussion is suitable on the present Amendment.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I feel that the right hon. Gentleman was not justified in interrupting me in my speech. I have never yet got up at this Box to deal with this Bill except to make very practical suggestions. I have never said a single word on this Bill except on points dealing with administration. I am now going to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, who wants to insert words in this Sub-section, and I am dealing with the words which he wishes to insert by way of Amendment. I want to deal with cases that he desires to include by his Amendment. I want to ask quite a sensible question, and that is as to whether the Ministry, when they were thinking of inserting these words in the Amendment, ever consulted the Ministry of Pensions as to the scheme of that Ministry for dealing with exactly the same type of case which will be dealt with under this Clause. We ought to be assured right away as to whether the Ministry of Health has secured information from the other Departments of State, which have had to deal with exactly the same type of case with which we are dealing in this Clause.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will endeavour to answer the questions, which I recognise are prompted by a sincere desire to obtain information. But I am bound to say that the speech of the hon. Gentleman shows clearly that he is trying to do the thing that I suggested. That is to say, that he desired to deal with cases which are not covered by this Amendment. An order of the Court leaves no discretion to my Department at all. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen have appreciated that point. I think the hon. Member for the Broxstow Division (Mr. G. Spencer) did not appreciate the difference between the cases dealt with in the first Sub-section of the
Clause and those dealt with in a subsequent Clause. It is this: that the first Sub-section only deals with a case where there is an order of the Court. There are many cases in which it would be in the interest of the child that the allowance should be paid to some other person than the mother, and where there is no order of the Court and these are the cases referred to by the hon. Member. I think the Committee will see that there is no inconsistency between Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of the Clause, Sub-section (1) lays down quite precisely what will happen to the child. Then as to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. H. Guest), there is no necessity to add any words to what we suggest, because the Court which has the whole of the circumstances before it will be able to decide whether, if the widow obtains a pension for herself and an allowance for her children, she would be the proper person to take care of the child. The Court have heard the circumstances, and the Court will decide. The Committee will see that the right person to have the allowance made for the purpose of helping to maintain the child should be paid to the one who maintains it.

Mr. H. GUEST: I am not quite clear whether in every case the mother is going to have a further award for the child?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the mother in the light of this Bill desires to have the child restored to her of course she can make an application to the Court if there are new conditions to put forward,

Mr. GUEST: There should be a special provision dealing with these very poor people, who should be given every facility in the matter.

Mr. SPENCER: I do not think the Minister has yet fully appreciated the point. By an order of the Court, a child may be transferred from its mother to a second person. That second person may prove to be totally unsatisfactory for the care of the child. Would there have to be a new order to get the child transferred from the second person, or has the Minister power, on the representation of the local authority, to get the child
removed from the second person to the local authority, notwithstanding the order which has been made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, the Ministry has no such power. The Bill states that the allowance shall be paid
as may from time to time be directed by order of the Court.
Therefore, the whole discretion is in the hands of the Court.

Mr. HARDIE: Can the Minister say whether there is any provision in the Bill to meet a case where the mother reforms? It is quite possible that after her child has been taken away she may reform— the fact that it has been taken away may lead to that regeneration. Is there anything in the Bill which makes it easy for the mother to get back the child?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no difficulty. The mother can always go back to the Court and make an application for the circumstances to be reviewed.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 28, after the word "is" insert the words "or would be."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. PETHICK- LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, after the word "payable", to insert the words "an orphan's pension shall be substituted for."
This is the first of three Amendments the object of which is to raise the allowance given to the class of children with which this Clause deals from the scale allowed for them when their mothers are alive to the scale to which they would be entitled if they were orphans. In the case of the first child in a family it raises the allowance from 5s. to 7s. 6d., and so far as the second child is concerned, it raises it from 3s. to 7s. 6d. Very few words of mine will be required to commend this Amendment to the Committee, and, I hope, to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. The object of the Amendment must be obvious. The proposal as it stands will not make for satisfactory working. The Minister has made a very natural distinction between the allowance which is given to a mother for her child and the allowance given to
a person who is keeping an orphan child, because a person having an orphan child needs a larger sum to look after it. In the cases we are now considering, the child is practically an orphan. Either through the fault of the mother, or perhaps through no fault of hers—for example, she may have become insane—she is no longer suitable to have the care of the child. In that case the child is deprived of the care of the father and of the care of the mother, and is, in effect, an orphan, and we ask that in such a case the allowance should be adequate to maintain it. It is not adequate under the Bill as it stands. After the first child, for which the allowance is 5s., there is only 3s. for each subsequent child, and it must be perfectly clear that 3s. will be totally inadequate to enable a child to be properly looked after.
I can conceive of only two objections to this proposal. The first is as to the cost. I recognise, of course, that the provisions of the Bill have to be such that the cost of the scheme as a whole can be met out of the finances available. The cost of this Amendment will be absolutely microscopic, because the number of children in this position are exceedingly few, and, therefore, I do not think the Minister will raise the objection of cost. The other objection I can imagine being brought forward would be that the father has presumably paid for an allowance for his child on a certain basis in the event of his death; there is no ground for increasing the allowance, even in the unfortunate event of the mother being unable to look after the child. That, surely, is not the point. The payments were made by the father with the object of ensuring that the child would be looked after in the event of his death, and if the mother is an unsuitable person to look after the child that is no reason why this practically orphan child should not receive the attention to which he or she is entitled, and for which the father has paid. I think the Minister will appreciate these points, and I hope he will be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have examined this suggestion with some care, because on the face of it it makes a certain appeal to our sympathies, but I have come to the conclusion that I cannot accept it. I have not come to that conclusion on
the ground of cost. The hon. Member is, of course, correct in saying that it would add to the cost of this scheme, but I do not think it would be a very serious addition, although, whatever it was, it would by so much diminish the resources at my disposal for some other purpose. I am not putting my disagreement with the proposal on that ground. I put it on two grounds. The first is an administrative ground, and the second ground is that it does not seem to me to be consistent with equity in regard to the pensions fund. As regards administration. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) spoke of these particular widows as being, in some cases, virtually out of the picture so far as the child is concerned, and he represented the child as being an orphan, but that is not quite accurate. The widow is temporarily out of account as the mother of the child, but not necessarily permanently. The child may be in the position of an orphan for the time being, but at any time the mother may get back into normal relations with the child, and then, of course, we ought to go back from the orphan allowance to the children's allowance. That would be an extraordinarily difficult thing to work. An order might be varied, and the child be given back to the custody of the mother, but we should not get notice of the revocation of the order, and these very much larger orphan allowances would continue to be paid when all the mother was entitled to was the lower allowance.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is it not necessary for information to be given as to who is to receive the money: must not the Court authorising the alteration give notice?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It might be some little time before the information came to the Department. I have no doubt it would come ultimately, but payments at the higher rate of 7s. 6d. for every child instead of 5s. or 3s. might go on for quite a long time. The mother might be insane and confined to an asylum, and if she came out of the asylum there would be another case where we should get the difficulty. Then there is the other point. Take the case of two widows with children. One woman is decent, hard-working, a good mother, looking after
her children, and receiving the normal allowance of 5s. and 3s. in respect of them. In her case the whole charge upon the pensions fund is limited to what is paid out on that scale. The second woman is a bad mother, such a bad mother that the Court decides that she is not to have the custody of the child. In that case the charge on the pension fund is increased by the difference between the children's allowance, and the orphan allowance. It does not seem to me to be right that the pension fund should have to pay more because it is a case of a bad mother. The cumulative effect of these various considerations upon my mind has led me to say that I cannot accept this Amendment.

Mr. THURTLE: I want to suggest to the Minister that the two reasons he has given are not very conclusive. I was glad to hear him say there is no financial difficulty in the way of accepting this Amendment, and if we can persuade him that there is no real administrative difficulty, and that real hardship falls upon the children concerned, I hope he will be prepared to meet us. On the administrative difficulty he said it might happen that a child which has been away from the mother for a time might go back to the mother, and that the higher rate would continue to be paid, although the mother was entitled to get only a lower rate. In every case where the child is taken out of the custody of the parent, and either put in an institution or handed to the charge of somebody else, arrangements have to be made to pay the money either to the institution or to the other person; and when the mother took back the child a rearrangement as to payments would be necessary, and it would always be possible for the Ministry to see that an accurate adjustment was made. There may be other considerations, but I think that meets the administrative difficulty.
The other point made by the Minister seemed to be an unworthy point to put before the Committee. He referred to cases in which there is a bad mother, but there are also cases where the mother is suffering from some kind of disability, and whatever the reason for removing the child from the custody of the mother, surely it is not right to penalise the child for the sins of the parents? The position of children who have been taken away
from bad homes is rather more pathetic than that of orphans themselves, because, obviously, they have been undergoing very hard times before they were taken away. The right hon. Gentleman said we were introducing too much sympathy into this matter, but I think this is a case which claims our consideration and sympathy and generosity even more than the children who are actually orphans themselves. We ought not to penalise these children for something over which they have no control because of some defect in their parents, and they ought to be put on the same footing of equality with other orphan children. I suggest that this is a case in which the important consideration of finance does not enter, and on the grounds of equity alone the right hon. Gentleman should treat these children on the same basis as orphan children.

Mr. W. BAKER: As a rule in these cases the vouchers are bound up in book form, all of them being payable to one person only. In those cases the Minister is bound to be communicated with before payment can be made to any other person. There is this further point, and it is that, in the case of a child being placed in the custody of some person other than its mother, it is essential that the sum should be increased if it is financially possible to do so. It would be a difficult thing to persuade any woman to undertake the custody of a child as a commercial proposition, quite apart from the difficulty which has been raised by the Minister. From my own experience I can say that the figure that would be charged by a poor woman for taking custody of such a child would be at least 15s. per week, and I do not think in a scheme of this sort we have any right to expect that a poor woman should be prepared to subsidise this particular scheme out of charity by providing maintenance of this kind because the figure allowed under this Bill was not sufficient. I hope this point will be pressed upon the Minister. Seeing that this is not a question of finance, it should be a matter on which the right hon. Gentleman should be pleased and anxious to give what has been asked for.

Mr. MONTAGUE: This is not so much an appeal to sympathy as an appeal to logic. So far as pensions are payable on
behalf of orphans, it is recognised by the Government that 7s. 6d. per week is a much more equitable sum that the additional sum which is given in the ordinary way. That extra amount of 7s. 6d. must have been placed in the Act with regard to orphans for some good reason, and it is that in the case of children not in the care of the mother you have a third person intervening, and you cannot expect the same loving care and self-sacrifice to be shown. Here we have a position where the child is in exactly the same position as the orphan, and if there is any reason for an additional allowance in the case of a child under the care of an institution, surely the same argument that applies in the case of an orphan ought to apply in the case of a child under the care of a third person.
With regard to the administrative difficulty, I suggest as against the logical position involved and the humanity of the thing, surely the question of administrative difficulty is one of a very small character. I am sure that in the working of all the insurance schemes that have been in operation, you have had and do have much greater administrative difficulties than this. I do not want to say that the point has been put forward merely as an excuse to oppose the Amendment, but it does seem to me to be an entirely trivial excuse. As for equity, I object, as the last speaker has done, to the principle of allowing the sins of the parents to be visited on the shoulders of the children. It is not a question of that kind here. There might be a case in the ordinary way of helping the child so as not to encourage parents not to accept their natural responsibility, but this is not involved here because the child is taken away for a definite and good reason, and if it is admitted to be desirable on the ground of the cost of keeping a child that the amount should be 7s. 6d. in an institution, surely the sum should be the same, because the child in this case is practically an orphan.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: This Amendment makes a strong appeal to me, and I ask the Minister if he cannot possibly reconsider his refusal. Is it not possible to look at the matter more from the point of view of the child? I hope it is not so much a
question of what is fair between the parent as what is fair to the child, and it is obviously necessary to allow more for the child separated than for a child living with its mother.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I notice that the Committee takes a very sympathetic view of this Amendment, and I feel very strongly the points which have been put to me. I am afraid, however, that the administrative difficulties are rather greater than hon. Members seem to think. In considering this Amendment, I have also to consider another standing in the name of same hon. Member on another page, the effect of which is to make the same provision as is proposed here also in the case where the widow has deserted or abandoned or ceases to support her child. I was much impressed with the observations which fell from the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who distinguished between this particular case and that of a child which had been separated from its mother by an order of the Court or otherwise. Perhaps I might meet this case by accepting this Amendment on the understanding that the hon. Member will not press the same Amendment which he was going to move later. Upon that understanding I shall be glad to accept this Amendment.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of the manner in which the Minister has met us here, I think it is only reasonable not to move my later Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 28, after the word "allowance," insert the word "and."— [Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

In page 4, line 29, after the word "is," insert the words "or has been."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that where the widow or other person to whom the additional allowance or orphan's pension is payable has not had an opportunity of presenting her case personally to the local authority, or a person appointed for the purpose by the local authority, the Minister, except in such cases as may be prescribed, shall, before giving any such direction, give the widow or such other person as aforesaid an opportunity of so presenting her case to a person appointed by him.
This is an endeavour to meet the criticisms that before taking the steps laid down in this part of the Clause the widow about whom the representation has been made should have an opportunity of personally putting her case so that we may be quite certain that all the relevant information has been given. I contemplate that in the great majority of cases under this Sub-section, the representation will be made to the Minister by the local authorities, and that will be the main channel. I also contemplate that the local authorities, before making these representations, will satisfy themselves that the representation is fully justified. Of course there are several authorities and statutory committees who have special qualifications not only for testing the circumstances in which a representation of this kind might be made—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to raise a Scottish point. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned education authorities, and I should like him to explain how this applies to Scotland.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 44, which gives all information about the point he mentions.
6.0 P.M.
There are some words in the proviso upon which I think one or two further comments may be needed. First of all, I am told, in reference to the fact that I have provided that the widow may be interviewed either by the local authority or by a person appointed for the purpose by the local authority, that that the local authority might appoint some official who might not be a competent person to undertake the inquiry. I think the wording makes it clear that I do not want the local authority to confine themselves to one person, but I am advised that, under the Interpretation Act, the word "person" includes "persons"—that the singular includes the plural in such a case. I think, therefore, that that point is covered. There is also another expression which, perhaps, may have given rise to some doubt and suspicion. It says that the Minister shall, "except in such cases as may be prescribed," give the widow an opportunity of so presenting her case. No doubt Members of the Committee will be wondering what is the object of the
words "except in such cases as may be prescribed." The cases to be prescribed are cases in which it is clear that the woman could not be personally interviewed. There are three classes of cases. The first is where the woman has abandoned the child and it is not known where she is, and in that case, clearly, you must not make it a necessity that she should be interviewed before this Order can be made. The second case is where she is in a lunatic asylum or similar institution, and the third is where she is in prison. In all of these cases some such provision as this is needed. I hope that, with this explanation, the Committee will agree that the words I have put down fully cover the representations made to me. If, however, there are any further suggestions that hon. Members desire to make, or any further alterations, I shall be very happy to consider them.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has explained this Amendment, but I am not quite clear yet as to what committee of the local authority will deal with cases of this kind. In the case of a very large local authority, such as a county borough, I should imagine that the authority would almost automatically remit cases of this kind to be dealt with by the local Pensions Committee, or the local Health Committee, or, it may be, the Education Committee—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Welfare Committee.

Mr. DAVIES: Yes, the Welfare Committee. I thought the right hon. Gentleman might perhaps have explained that in the first place. The only difficulty I can see is this: the type of person who makes inquiries of this kind is the difficulty in all such cases; it depends upon whether you get the right type of person. I know the argument will be used that the right type of person would be appointed to make such inquiries, but it does seem to me that we should not allow an Amendment to pass which would automatically give to a committee of a local authority the power to transfer their duty as a committee to an individual. That is the only point that I want to raise. I should prefer that the woman should have a title to come before a committee of men and women duly
elected by the people, so that she can come before a tribunal that will understand her case. I do not like the individual reports that are sometimes obtained for local authorities by some of their officials. I should like, therefore, to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether I am right in presuming that the woman would have the title, in spite of the fact that they might appoint an individual to inquire into her case, to meet the whole committee if she so desires, in order that they may deal as a tribunal with her claim and appeal. I should like, if at all possible, to have an explanation on that very important point.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after the word "personally", to insert the words "or through some person appointed by her."
This is a manuscript Amendment which I have handed in, and I think there is sufficient justification for submitting an Amendment of this sort for the following reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has just inquired what committee of the local authority would be responsible for these matters, and the Minister suggested that possibly the Infant Welfare Committee might take them up, but in any case, whatever committee it might be in practice, what I presume would happen would be that the appropriate committee would appoint a person—in practice an official —who would make the necessary inquiries. I think that everyone will appreciate that what I am going to submit to the Committee is the usual experience in these cases. There is a large number of quite uneducated and uninstructed people who are somewhat frightened when an official of a local authority comes to them to inquire for information. They have the same sort of fright at the oncoming of an official of that sort as they have when the Poor Law official comes, and they have not the same confidence in placing their view of the case before such an official as they would have in putting their case in charge of an intimate friend, who would be able to represent their point of view to the Committee. Therefore, I would submit that it would be desirable and equitable if the words I have suggested could be accepted by the Minister.
Before sitting down, I should like to add one other point. I had submitted a further Amendment to substitute for the word "person" ["a person appointed for the purpose"] the word "committee," but I gather from the Minister's explanation that under the Interpretation Act the word "person" implies "persons," and I think, in view of that fact, that there is no need for me to press that point. There is also a third Amendment that I have submitted, but I gather from the Minister that he is carefully circumscribing the cases that are excepted, and, if that be so, I do not propose to press that Amendment either. The word "person," where it occurs later on in the Minister's Amendment, is, I presume, also capable of the same interpretation as the one that occurs earlier. I would, however, ask the Minister to consider favourably the Amendment that I have moved.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very pleased to accept that Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."

Miss WILKINSON: Could I just raise a further point? May I say how glad we are that the Minister of Health has accepted the view of some of us who thought it a very objectionable feature of the Bill that the woman was not able to appoint someone to state her case for her? I should like to point out that there are two defects in this proviso, even as now amended. To begin with, it may be all right here and now for the Minister of Health to say "except in such cases as may be prescribed," and to say that that only means cases where the widow is not available; but, if that be so, would it not be better to state it in terms. After all, there may be other Ministers of Health who are not bound by a casual statement made in this House by a previous Minister, and who may make very large exceptions to the cases that may be submitted I understand that a great deal of trouble in Acts of Parliament comes from loose wording of this kind, and I, certainly, know a large number of people who are experts on this Bill, on reading this proviso very carefully, had no idea that the Minister merely meant to limit
it to cases where the widow was not available. Therefore, I would suggest that definite words be put in in order to lay down, for all future administrators of this Measure, what exactly is in the Minister's mind.
There is also another blemish on the proviso as it stands, and that is in regard to the question of appeal. There is no question of appeal to anybody except the Minister, and I suggest that thereby a very serious disability may be placed on the woman. She may lose her pension for life, she may find herself placed in tutelage and her pension paid to some other person, her children may be taken away from her and someone else paid to look after them, she may see her whole home broken up, and that may come about through information being laid against her. She may not even be cognisant of her rights; she may let them go by default, or may be bullied out of them by a local authority. Therefore, it seems to me that there ought to be some protection for the woman before all these penalties are placed upon her, and I would like to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to go further and provide that a woman who is not satisfied with her treatment shall have a right to appeal to a Court of law. After all, we have Courts of law which are set up—

The CHAIRMAN: May I point out that that question is specifically raised by a later Amendment. I think it could hardly be embodied in this Amendment, but I am going shortly to call an Amendment suggesting that the right of appeal should be given.

Miss WILKINSON: I, of course, quite accept that, but I was thinking that, while we were on the job of putting in this proviso and receiving the statement of the Minister upon it, it would be simpler to deal with it now. Of course, however, I bow to your ruling, and will only ask the Minister if he can see his way to give us some concession on the other points I have raised.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it would be advisable to put a category of cases into the Bill itself. Although I have given the hon. Member cases, it may be that some other class of case may arise hereafter which cannot be foreseen at the moment, which could not be dealt with because the Act has limited the cases to
a particular category. I am willing to consider between now and Report whether I can find some general words which would indicate the class of case that we have in mind, and if I can do that without importing any further possibilities of misunderstanding into the Bill, I should be very pleased to do so.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) and others, would be better raised by an Amendment lower down in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). Therefore, I do not select it at this point.

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (4).
If I may, I should like to continue the argument which was not in Order on the previous Amendment. May I point out the serious results which are likely to come about from the first two lines of this Sub-section—
Where on any representation by the local authority, or from any court or otherwise.
I regret that, owing to circumstances over which I had no control, I was not here to move the previous Amendment, which met my point. These words, "or otherwise," which appear throughout the Clause, seem to me to be extraordinarily vague. They do not state in any way who "otherwise" is or how these representations are to be made. It seems to me to be, to say the least of it, extremely undesirable that a woman who is left a widow and has children dependent upon her should be at the mercy of any common informer who chooses to lay evidence against her. Those of us who had experience of these matters in the early days of the War, before the routine became settled, know that this was a very serious matter, and we are bringing the same kind of evil into this Bill by this Clause. It means, as the words stand, that any set of persons, or any single person, can lay information against this woman, for instance, a neighbour who may be jealous that she
has a pension and the neighbour has not. It lays the woman open to the possibility of blackmail. Someone may come along and say, "If you do not give us money we will lay information against you." A woman may very easily be intimidated by unscrupulous people in that way. It therefore seems necessary that in the most definite and categorical way, right from the beginning it should be laid down that no casual person can give information and that information can only be laid by a properly constituted body or authority under the law. You have the words here. "by the local authority." Why would it not be possible under the local authority to have a committee which should deal entirely with these cases, and make proper and careful investigation before any complaint whatever is sent to the Minister? I think if the right hon. Gentleman would consider that kind of local machinery his Act would work a good more smoothly than it is likely to do if anyone, of any standing or reputation, can lay complaint against the woman.
Then there is the question of representation from any Court or otherwise. I quite agree here that the Court is a properly constituted body, but it is again laying the woman open to very serious disability. There are certain offences for which she may be penalised in a Court of law on the evidence of one policeman. Those of us who have been concerned with social work have repeatedly pointed out how unfair it is on women that on one policeman's evidence alone—and in a Court of law the policeman's word is always taken against the woman who is charged with solicitation—she may be penalised, however innocent she may be. In fact, I think it will be within the knowledge of Members of the House that, during the suffrage agitation previous to the War, there were women connected with the suffrage movement who laid themselves open to charges of this kind in order to prove to the police authorities the real scandal that, however respectable a woman was, if she appeared charged with this class of offence before a Court, it was always the policeman's word that should be taken. Look at the situation that may arise under this Subsection. You may have a woman charged with this class of offence. The policeman's word is taken, and the Court
immediately comes to the conclusion that she is not fit to have charge of her children. She is not only convicted of an offence of which she may be perfectly innocent, but she stands to lose her pension, to have her home broken up, to have her children taken away from her, and to be placed in perpetual tutelage on the word of one policeman. Of course, the Minister will say this is an exaggerated case, but these cases are happening in our Courts every day.
Another point is this: The Minister will say it lies in his discretion, and if such a case happened he would be able to put it right. If it was an individual woman, coming to see Mr. Neville Chamberlain at his home after breakfast, I am certain a soft-hearted Minister would look into the case and say, "Of course, this is not a suitable case," but in actual practice that is not what is likely to happen. These Acts are not administered by Ministers with soft hearts, but by very hard-hearted lawyers and civil servants, and, consequently, it is not any real protection to women that it should be said that the Minister has it in his discretion. If she is guilty of a very serious offence, that renders her unfit to look after her children; it is in the best interests of all concerned that someone should look after them for her, I am not complaining about that, but it would be very wise if we had some kind of uniform procedure in these matters and, if it was possible, to have a committee under the local authority, which is likely to administer these things with more flexibility, more sympathy, and more realisation of women's difficulties, if the local authority should, as it were, be the Court of First Instance in this matter, and that if a Court of law finds a woman guilty of a serious offence, it should at least consult with the local authorities before making a complaint to the Minister, so that there should be no possibility of the woman being unduly injured. We are all anxious to safeguard the moral and physical welfare of the children. We do not want to leave the children in the hands of people who are unsuitable to look after them, but we have somewhat old-fashioned notions and we believe that at least 99 per cent. of mothers are much the best people to look after their children, and that it is very often the fault of poverty, perhaps the fault of bad
training, perhaps only words of kindly wisdom and assistance are needed in order that the home should be kept together and the children brought up properly. After all, it is the poorest women we are talking about. It is not the woman who is accustomed to looking after herself, but the poorest and most ignorant of the population who will be very really injured possibly by this Bill Therefore I want to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to come to such an arrangement as I have suggested. It may of course not be possible at the moment for the Minister to adopt a form of words but we should be quite content if he would take this back and consider the whole question on the Report stage. I hope we shall not have the hon. Member irrevocably committing the House and the country to this Sub-section.

Viscountess ASTOR: Many people on this side feel as strongly about this matter a? the hon. Lady herself, who has put her case so well. It is an injustice which sooner or later must be remedied, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I gladly respond to the request which has been made to me. But first let me call attention to the exact proposition that is being made. What the hon. Lady has asked us to do is to delete Sub-section (4), which says:
Where, on any representation by the local authority, or from any Court or otherwise, the Minister is satisfied that it is in the interests of any woman entitled to a widow's pension that the pension should not he paid to her but should be applied for the benefit of the widow and the children (if any), he may direct that the pension (including any additional allowance) shall be paid to the local authority or to some other person approved by him to be administered by the local authority or that person for the benefit of the widow and the children (if any).
At any rate that part of the Bill is necessary. I need only refer to one case to give an illustration of its necessity. If, for instance, a woman is a habitual drunkard, and is found so by the Court, obviously there must be some power to make a direction of the kind indicated. That is one of the reasons why it is necessary, and why the pension should not be
paid to her but to some local authority or some sub-committee who should administer it for her.

Miss WILKINSON: Is it not the case that what the Minister says is covered by Clause 21, and even if we leave out this Sub-section he will still have what is suggested?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think that is so. Clause 21 simply deprives the pensioner of her qualification. This is where she is still to have the benefit of the pension, but it is to be paid to some other person or authority to be used on her behalf, and in such a case it is obviously in her interest that we should make some such arrangement as that which is indicated. That is what we do there and everyone will agree that it is desirable. The suggestion has been made that the words "or otherwise" are perhaps objectionable. That is simply to meet the case where a local authority, for instance, or a Court has not notified the Minister of such circumstances as that and where the local inspector or someone in the interests of the children has notified the Ministry. The mere fact that someone makes a statement of that kind, of course, is simply a matter of notice to the Ministry. It does not give any particular value to the statement. The hon. Lady has instanced anonymous letters and matters of that kind. If an information of that kind were laid, there would be an inquiry, possibly through the local Welfare Committee, whether there was any substance in the report. It must be apparent that there would be a number of cases where if you did not allow representations to be made by some other party, the facts might never come to the notice of the Minister, because the local authority might not know, or the Court might not know. The intention is simply to make a provision in the interests of the woman or the children. In order to meet any possible difficulty or injustice, we propose to move later an Amendment which would give the widow an opportunity of presenting her case, and the same right which was extended to her in the other Clause with which we have been dealing.
If we add to this Clause the Amendment to which I have just referred
standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health:
Provided that where the widow has not had an opportunity of presenting her case personally to the local authority, or a person appointed for the purpose by the local authority, the Minister (except in such cases as may be prescribed) shall, before giving any such direction, give the widow an opportunity of so presenting her case to a person appointed by him,
and we add the other words suggested, "or through some person appointed by her" it will be found that the rights of these people will be amply safeguarded. It will give the widow every opportunity of putting forward her case. By that means the widow will be protected in the same manner as was provided in the previous instance. The necessity for this Clause is not any anxiety on the part of the Government or the Minister of Health to unduly press these cases, but it is brought forward in the interests of the women and children themselves. Anyone who is interested in trade union or friendly society work must know that provision of this sort has to be made for certain cases. Subject to the Amendment which we propose to move later, we think that this Clause would give every safeguard to the widow.

Mr. HARNEY: I am opposed to this Clause root and branch. It offends my sense of the liberty of the subject. Do the Committee realise the far-reaching power that is given by this Clause? Mark what happens:
Where, on any representation by the local authority, or from any court"—
Not an order of the Court, but a representation, an opinion, perhaps, of some magistrate
or otherwise, the Minister, etc.
That, converted into simple language, means anybody who chooses to whisper any gossip in the Minister's ear about a woman. That answers the description in this Sub-section. Then the Minister, without taking any evidence, without any inquiry, if he is satisfied that there is any truth in the gossip, can say, "Mrs. Jones, it is true that you are entitled to 10s. a week, for which your husband paid, which is your right, but I, without the authority of the law, without giving you an opportunity of being heard, with-
out a single safeguard, in my own discretion, I say that you must kindly pay that 10s. over to somebody else."

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. and learned Member has omitted to refer to the Amendment which I announced we intend to move, which is on page 1399 of the Order Paper, the last Amendment but one standing in the name of the Minister of Health.

Mr. HARNEY: That Amendment reads:
Provided that where the widow has not had an opportunity of presenting her case personally to the local authority, or a person appointed for the purpose by the local authority, the Minister (except in such cases as may be prescribed) shall, before giving any such direction, give the widow an opportunity of so presenting her case to a person appointed by him.
I notice that the next Amendment stands in the name of a very well-known Member, the hon. and learned Member for South Shields, which strikes me as a much better Amendment. All that this Amendment moans is that the widow is to get an opportunity. What is the difference between a widow, a drunken widow if you wish, a widow who goes on the streets, and a rakish young man now receiving a pension, or a drunken old man receiving a pension? Why should you not have the same right to say, and it might be justifiable, "That silly old fellow, every time he gets his 10s. he goes off to the pub to spend it. It would be far getter that the Minister should look after him." Perhaps so, and if we were living in a grandmotherly age, it might be done. If you do not say that to the drunken old man, what right have you to say it to a woman, whether she happens to be old or young.
I do not champion women any more than anybody else, but the time has come, and certainly when I look at some women I am convinced of it, when women can very well look after themselves. They resent being regarded as mere weaklings. They resent our saying, "Now be a good girl, or I will take the 10s. from you!" Women have a right to resent any imputation upon the strength of their characters as to their being able to look after themselves. There is no justification for this Measure, unless you say that the Minister shall have a superintending moral jurisdiction
over all persons who receive pensions, men or women, and you say that it is better for all these persons that the handling of the money should not be theirs but should be given to someone else. If you are going to go so far as that, then let us debate it, but if not, then what right have you to make this difference between an adult woman and an adult man? You have no right to say that a drunken adult woman should not get her pension than you have to say that a drunken adult man should not get his pension.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I am a little unhappy about this Clause, and I should like an explanation. Perhaps the Attorney-General could give it. It is purely a legal point. Under Sub-section (1), according to my lay understanding, if the Court makes an order, certain things follow. The child is taken from the mother, and so in in accordance with the order that has been made. The custody having been settled, the payments follow. I do not think anybody would object to that. Under Sub-section (4) there is apparently no order, no decision, no judicial action on the part of the Court; but the Court may make representations to the Minister. Here my ignorance and lack of experience-comes in, and it is upon this point that I would like to get an explanation. Under what condition would a Court that has not made an order make a representation to the Minister? I am rather afraid that this is doing, or it might do, very severe violence to the rights of the subject.

Mr. HARNEY: This is not under an order of the Court

Mr. MacDONALD: If there were an order of the Court it would be all right. Under what conditions will a representation be made which is not an order of the Court? Thai is the difficulty to my lay mind. We would all like to improve each other very much. We are all in that habit. We have all motes in our eyes. Our brother who has a beam in his eye, prefers to remove the mote from our eye, and we sometimes with a beam in our eye, may wish to remove the mote from his. If the Attorney-General or the Minister of Health can satisfy me on this point, I should feel much happier.

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. You called me to order when I raised a question on the words "or appeal to a Court of Law" on the Amendment which the Minister of Health was moving. I at once accepted your ruling, but having had an opportunity of looking at the matter further, I should like to point out that these are not the same things at all. What I was asking the Minister to do on that Clause was to give the woman some right of appeal to a Court of Law. In this Clause it is merely a question of whether the Court of Law makes representations against her. Therefore, they were two entirely different things. In that case, is it not possible to get a reply from the Minister on the matter which I raised on the previous Clause?

The CHAIRMAN: If I understood the hon. Member aright, she complained that the provision the Minister had suggested applied only to one Sub-section. That is exactly why I have selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields rather than one on a similar point that came earlier. His Amendment will cover cases that arise anywhere under the Clause.

Sir A. MOND: I do not think the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has adequately dealt with the point at issue. The term "representations" seems very wide. It seems to me capable of covering almost any kind of general statement. We have had some talk about the meaning of the voids "or otherwise." The Parliamentary Secretary admitted that these words were put in in order to enable people outside either the local authority or the Court to make representations. Is not that carrying the idea much farther than it ought to be? The limitation in the Amendment to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred only deals with the position of the widow after representation has been made by some person. But why should she be exposed to the position of having to answer to some person unknown on some quite unfounded charge made by some person apparently on any particular subject which comes into his mind?
You are dealing in this Bill with people who make contributions, and after all they are entitled to be treated in a
different way from that which obtains in the case of Poor Law relief. You are here merely introducing a kind of inquisition of a general character, with a beneficial object perhaps, but you are doing so against people who either themselves, or through their husbands, have for years paid for pensions. I should say from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that cases would be rare, but is it worth while then encumbering your Bill with a provision of this kind? If you do, ought it not to be made very much narrower, tighter and more precise so that those who are getting pension may know exactly where they are? The people you are dealing with are not skilled lawyers. They are people who may be easily intimidated.
It seems to me that you are opening the door to somebody going to a widow and saying, "If you do not do something, if you will not give me some money, I will make a representation to the Ministry that you are leading an immoral life, or that you are a bad mother, or something else." Somebody to whom she owes money may do it and the woman does not know who is going to hear her case or what the charge is. The matter is left entirely to the discretion of some unknown person, who has to decide whether or not the money to which she is entitled should go to her or to some other, again, unknown person. This Sub-section is different from the earlier Sub-section. In that Sub-section you deal with the protection of the children. Here you go much further and try to protect against herself a woman who is entitled to a pension. I think that the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) was quite right in asking why should you assume that women are not capable of looking after themselves. Why should you treat them in a different way from men, when men are entitled to a similar privilege? It seems to me that you are having an entirely unnecessary complication. The fewer complications you have in administration the better. You certainly ought not to put the burden of dealing with a case of this kind on the Ministry. Cases have to come up to the Ministry, and have to be considered by people remote from the circumstances, and there must be a large amount of correspondence and waste of time. It is much better, instead of trying
to amend this Clause, to leave it out altogether, and simplify a complicated Measure.

Sir H. SLESSER: The exact legal content and purpose of Sub-section (1) is specific. You get an order of Court which operates, and the order under that Subsection is an order known to the law, but the words in this sub-section introduce new matter. What we wish to know is the legal effect and meaning of the word "representation" as distinguished from an order. It is a very unusual thing to give to a Court of law a vague undefined power to make representations. May I test it, for example, with regard to the act of appeal. One might prohibit an act of a magistrate or seek a mandamus or apply some other remedy if he exceeds his jurisdiction. But what are you to do with a representation? What is the meaning in law, if a magistrate makes a representation? Is that a vague comment, or something scribbled on a piece of notepaper? Has it any legal effect? It is never defined anywhere.
By this representation the magistrate is to take it on himself in addition to performing his onerous duties to make representations. Why do you ask him to make representations? A woman is brought up in Court and the magistrate makes an order. Is the Minister going to ask him to make representations to himself? It looks as if the person who has asked to have the representation made is the very person who will receive the representation. There is no means of complaining against, of upsetting, or of dealing with that representation from the Court by legal process. The Minister may become satisfied on that representation that in the interest of the woman the pension should not be paid to her. We may assume that all the matters which can now be dealt with in law are dealt with in Sub-section (1). Therefore these representations would apparently be cases in which the offence was something less than constituted under Subsection (1). Otherwise the whole of the rest of the machinery is unnecessary.
I have asked how the representation is to be made. I ask now what is to be the subject-matter of the representation? It is not anything in Sub-section (1), because that deals with the custody. It is some
representation as, "I do not like the look of this lady," or, "It would be better, in my opinion, if her pension were dealt with in this way or that way." That is an unfair burden to put on the magistrate. It offends every principle of law; it is uncertain, inapplicable and uncontrolled, and it puts the magistrate in the unsatisfactory position that his duty shall not be specifically defined either to make or not make an order. To a certain extent the same comment applies to the representation of a local authority. A local authority is defined as a county borough or a borough. How do they make a representation? Is it by a resolution of the whole of the town council considering the case of Mrs. A? They make a representation, and how does it reach the Ministry? There is no committee defined as being the body to make the representation. I should imagine that it would be a resolution of the whole of the town council in their full robes assembled to make a representation to the Ministry that Mrs. A ought not to get her pension.
On the face of it this is a very serious provision indeed; certain powers are now defined in a law which entitles a magistrate to interfere with the normal relations between parent and child. They are carefully safeguarded and limited, and when this House was more jealous of personal liberty than it is to-day there was great alarm at the proposal that children should be taken away from their parents. The law always guarded jealously the rights of parents over their children. That is to be extended, and extended by words which are not defined, and it is to be put into operation by an authority which is not defined. I support the plea that as regards Sub-section (4) the Clause should be taken back and reconsidered, and personally I hope that it will not reappear. Meanwhile I hope that the Attorney-General will give an explanation of the real meaning and purpose of this Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I am very pleased to respond to the request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) and the late Solicitor-General (Sir H. Slesser). They will forgive me if I at the same time reply to the right hon Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond). The Leader of the Opposition says that in Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 you have a provision as to what is to happen when
a child has been taken away from the custody of the mother by an order of the Court, and he says that an order of the Court is a perfectly legitimate thing, and we know exactly where we are. It is made on legal ground in the ordinary way. He says that Subsection (4) is much vaguer and less satisfactory. May I explain why I think that that criticism is misplaced, and that there has been a little confusion and misunderstanding in the minds of some of the critics. Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (4) deal with quite different subject matter. Sub-section (i) is the provision which the Committee had already recognised, now adopted, under which, when the Court has taken away the custody of the child from its mother by reason of some of the provisions of the Children Act, the allowance in respect of the child is to be paid over to the person who has the child in charge.

Mr. HARNEY: It is by an order of Court. Under Sub-section (1), where the Court has already made an order, or may in future make an order, separating the child from its mother, then the allowance that goes to the mother can only pass through the child, not by an Order of the Ministry, but by an order of the Court. Under Sub-section (4) the money can pass away from the mother by an Order of the Ministry without going to the Court at all.

7.0 P.M.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The interruption of the hon. and learned Gentleman seems premature. I was trying to explain to the Committee what he himself had said, that the two Subsections are different in their provisions and deal with a wholly different subject-matter. I was trying to explain what the subject-matter is. In Sub-section (1) you have a case where, under the provisions of the Children's Act, the custody of the child has been handed over to some other person, provision is made that the additional allowance in respect of the child shall be paid over to the person who has the custody of the child or for the child's benefit in such manner as the Court, which makes the order taking the child away from its parent, may direct. Sub-section (4) is not dealing with a case in which mother and child have been separated at all. It has nothing
to do with the separation of mother and child, nor is it dealing, as the late Solicitor-General seems to have thought, with the case in which anybody has decided that the widow is to be deprived of her pension. There are provisions in Clause 21 of the Bill, which I hope we shall reach some day—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or some night!"]—which provides that in certain circumstances, quite definitely there laid down, there is power to cancel the pension, and there is provision made in a later Clause, Clause 28, that where a woman has her pension cancelled on conviction and so on, she shall have a right to appeal, which will be dealt with by the proper body.

Sir H. SLESSER: What I pointed out was that this Clause provides that the pension shall not be paid to her. Those are the words of the Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am trying to make the Committee understand the difference. I 'have dealt with Clause 6, Sub-section (1). There is a second part of the Bill under which the widow is deprived on conviction in certain cases of her pension and is given a right of appeal. Sub-section (4) is not one which is separating mother and child or dealing with what is to happen in such a case, nor does it deprive a woman of her right to a pension. That is dealt with in Clause 21. Sub-section (4) is a provision put in, not as some hon. and right hon. Members imagine, as a penalty on the widow, but as a protection for the widow. There are cases where circumstances may come to light which render it obvious that in the interests of the widow and the child it is far better that the money shall be spent for them rather than by them. Take the case of a woman who, as soon as she gets her money unfortunately has a habit of going to the public-house and drinking it.

Miss WILKINSON: Clause 21.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member says Clause 21. That is the very thing we have to avoid. The hon. Member would apparently prefer that it should be mandatory in such a case that the widow was to lose her pension. That is not what we desire.

Miss WILKINSON: May I point this out? If the woman's offence is bad
enough for her to be deprived of her children, well and good, but you are stating a case where you leave the child with the mother. The mother is supposed to be well able to look after the children. You are not taking the children from her, and then you say, although she is perfectly fit to do the most difficult thing in the world, and that is to bring up children to be citizens of the State, she is not fitted to spend 10s. for herself and 5s. for her children. The idea is ridiculous.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think the hon. Member said that 99 women out of 100 were the best people to look after their children. I do not think, and the Government do not think, that merely because it happens that a woman has a weakness of the kind I have indicated it necessarily follows in every case that she is to have an order of the Court nor do we think she is to have her 10s. taken away. If Sub-section (4) were not in, there would be no middle way at all. You have either to find a case where mother and child are separated altogether, and in that case certainly the children's money would be dealt with in this manner, or you have to find a case where the woman is to be deprived of her pension altogether on conviction for some offence. Sub-section (4) is put in not to penalise the widow but to protect her.
I want the Committee to envisage the sort of case we have in mind. There may well be cases in which women, unfortunately, if they get money in their hands, are tempted at once to go and spend it in the public-house, and then have nothing for another week. If this Clause were not in, in such a case the widow and her child would both suffer. There are other cases, unhappily, where it may happen that a widow has got into the hands of moneylenders, and, although, as the Committee knows, there is no power to charge a pension so as to attach it for a debt, the moneylender very soon would find out on what day the pension is becoming due, and the widow would often find it difficult to resist pressure to use the money in paying exorbitant interest instead of using it for the purpose for which we intend it, namely, for the benefit of the widow and her child. There may be many other cases. In cases of that kind where, if the money is paid over to the widow, it is proved to the satisfaction of the
Minister that the widow and child will not get the benefit of it, but that the money will either be wasted or be seized by somebody for whose benefit it is not intended, provision is here made, not that the widow shall not get her pension, as the late Solicitor-General seems to think, but that the pension and the children's money shall be administered for the benefit of the widow and child instead of being handed over in cash to the widow. That is what we are endeavouring to get.
The Committee may say that is a case which will not often happen, and we need not deal with it. It may not be a case that will very often happen, but, where it does happen, it seems to me of great importance that we should deal with it. We take power in Sub-section (4) to provide that where it is obvious that by handing the money over to the widow herself, the result will be that she really will not get the benefit of it; it can be used for her benefit instead of being handed over directly to her, and in such a case we protect her and her child by putting into the hands of the Minister the discretionary power set out in Sub-section (4). I could give other illustrations. There may be a woman not so mentally deficient as to be put in the asylum, but yet so feeble-minded that she is not properly able to administer money. We all know of such cases. We are anxious to provide that this money shall be used to the best advantage for the widow and her child. We do not confine that desire to cases where the Court has ordered the widow to lose the custody of the child or to cases where under Clause 21 the offence is so serious that she has to lose her pension. We are providing this in order to enable us to protect her and her child in such cases when it becomes apparent that, unless some other person administers the money, it will be wasted and never used for the purpose for which it is meant. I do not think that is an unreasonable suggestion to make, or one which ought to be resented by those who are as anxious as we are to do the best we can in the interest of the widow.
The other criticism put forward—and I hope the late Solicitor-General will not think me unfair if I style it pedantic— is that the word "representation" is difficult. He drew a picture of the Lord Mayor in his robes, and I do not know what.
We are only providing in the earlier part of the Clause that it shall operate when the Minister gets information that such a state of affairs has arisen. He shall not act on it until he has given the widow a chance of stating her full case and answering suggestions made and until he is satisfied as to whether or not it will be for her and her child's benefit that the money shall be spent in this way. The representation may come from the local authority, who may have got to know of the facts by reason of its education officers or persons of that kind. It may come from the Court. My hon. and learned Friend the late Solicitor-General said the Court has enough to do. Who is to demand the representation? Nobody is demanding a representation at all. All that we are providing is that, if the magistrate or the County Court judge has brought to his notice in the course of his duty facts which indicate that in this particular case the money is being squandered and wasted and not being used for the benefit of the widow and child, he can then, if he is so minded, call the Minister's attention to the facts in order that they may be looked into by the Minister. Assuming that the Minister is satisfied, on investigation from information so received, after having heard the widow's case fully put before him, that it is in her interest and her child's interest that the money shall not be taken away from her, but shall be spent for her by the local authority or some other person undertaking the expenditure, surely it is in the interests of the widow and the child that there shall be power to make the direction given by the Sub-section. I hope I have answered the questions the Leader of the Opposition put to me.

Mr. MacDONALD: The right hon. and learned Attorney-General has certainly given an explanation, but the impression his explanation has left on my mind is that he is opening a very wide door to the interference of busybodies. Everyone of us who knows the activities of life know perfectly well that there are a thousand and one people who for one reason or another would be only too glad to make those representations and become the custodians of money paid to widows on behalf of themselves and their
children. I have had a little to do with some of these cases myself. There are always very well meaning busybodies who will give you information about these people, and who suggest that there should be custodians and guardians. I am sure that everyone who has had any connection with after-care work will know of such cases. There are certain people who require assistance to make ends meet from week to week or from month to month, and we are constantly pestered by various kinds of visitors who tell us that we should not pay our money to our old friend, more or less a dependent, but that we should pay it to them in order that it can be organised with other small payments from other sources. With my experience of that type I am exceedingly suspicious of a Clause such as this.
I do not resist what the learned Attorney-General says as to cases calling for special treatment. Certainly there are such cases. But I cannot imagine how some cases will ever come to light in this way. One of the hardest cases is that of the poor woman who has got into the toils of the moneylender. It is the hardest thing in the world to discover such a case until, possibly, it is made known in the court. I hope that the Government is not going to encourage the sending up of representations from unauthorised, unofficial and very largely irresponsible people. If the Minister can devise a responsible authority to act in this matter he would be doing a great service, but in order to do that good service, which would apply in only a very limited number of cases, he might be doing a great disservice by allowing cases to be subject to unauthorised and purely personal investigations. That suspicion is still in my mind. I hope that the Government will consider this very seriously before they give that power. I think they are proposing to give a power far beyond the necessities or the practicability of the case.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: To a certain extent I agree with a great deal of what has been said by hon. Members opposite. This Clause seems to me a most mischievous Clause. We have heard what the Leader of the Opposition has said with regard to the needless gossip that goes about. Those of us who have any great experience of public life, and certainly those who have
sat in the police courts for some years, know the jealousy that exists in large industrial districts. This Clause will open a large field for blackmail. It is very easy for one woman, if she gets her knife into another woman, to accuse her of a certain crime, and if the woman will not pay the money that is demanded it is very easy for her accuser to give information to the police. There is another matter, and a distasteful matter, and because it is distasteful it ought to be spoken of in this House. That is the matter which was referred to by an hon. Member opposite—the case of the woman who is brought up and charged with soliciting and is committed on a police officer's word alone. There is no doubt that there are hundreds of women in this country who are wrongly committed. I can say that in the Court in which I have sat for the last 16 years I have always refused to send down a woman on the police officer's word alone. In cases like that, I think that this proposal will operate with great unfairness with regard to the woman. As far as I can see, there is everything provided for under Clause 21. I hope that the Government will see their way to withdraw the Clause, or, if not, to devise some machinery by which a woman who is convicted in the police court of a certain offence can come before a committee and have her case thoroughly thrashed out, and be represented by a friend or some neighbour who can put her case before that committee.

Mr. LAWSON: I was pleased to hear the Attorney-General say that this was a matter into which party feelings did not enter. It is a matter of anxiety to all sides to get this very delicate matter settled properly. I wish that principle could be followed out in all cases, even with other pensions. I can quite understand the position of the Government in trying to find an alternative method to the Court. The difficulty to me about the whole of this principle is this—that in the Court the woman would get a chance of facing her accusers, who laid against her information such as would tend to the forfeiture of her pension or the diversion of the money. As this Subsection stands, the woman will not have an opportunity of facing her accusers. The Parliamentary Secretary said that
the woman would have an opportunity of stating her case before some authority according to an Amendment that is to be moved later. What I want to ensure is that the woman not only deals with the attempt to divert the money, but also faces the people who lay the information.
The outstanding thing about all the explanations of the Government is that they have- never taken steps to consult the Government Department that has had more experience than anyone in this matter, namely, the Ministry of Pensions. I accept responsibility for the statement that the Ministry of Pensions has had a very wide experience upon this matter. The Ministry of Pensions could tell the Minister of Health that there is no more delicate proceeding they can take part in than one in which they want to make safeguards in the way suggested in this case. What takes place in the case of the Ministry of Pensions? Information is laid before the local war pensions committee for the Ministry of Pensions. The local war pensions committee, through its chief area officer, sets its sub-committee or children's care and women's care committee to work to make investigations. At the same time the special grants committee communicates with the police to find out what there is in the charges. The Ministry of Pensions does, in fact, take action upon information laid by an anonymous person. I am not making that statement at random. While in the Court the widow would have the chance of facing her accuser. In any investigation under this Bill the woman would not have an opportunity of facing the accuser who wished to say that she was a questionable person.
Under the Ministry of Pensions a pensioner cannot have his pension taken from him for anything except treason, and the same principle applies to other pensioners or annuitants under the State or local authorities. Pensions can be taken away for other causes only in the case of a widow. While that may be an arguable question, at least the Government with its majority should make sure, if it has to take these powers to divert a widow's pension or children's pension, that the words in which that is expressed are in clear, legal form, so that a woman shall face her accusers, and if the principle has to be granted at least let it be done decently and with some sense of justice
to the widow. I suggest that in the light of the criticisms from all sides of the House, not made in a party spirit at all. it would be a useful thing if the Minister would withdraw this Sub-section, and if the Government desire to deal with the same matter on Report, at least they should get to know what the experience of the Ministry of Pensions is before they embark upon a principle of this kind which I am sure will bring hardship upon some good women.
There is another point. Once you take away or divert a pension and treat a woman as a person who is unfit to take charge of children, is there going to be any right of appeal? Can there be any revision of the decision? What takes place now? Some war widow has an illegitimate child; she falls by the way. A committee investigates the matter, sometimes on anonymous information that is laid. I do know of a case of a woman who is a very good woman, and morally there are few of us who can throw a stone at her. She has had an illegitimate child and is a good mother. But her pension has been stopped. The Ministry of Pensions has an arrangement whereby the pension can be granted again after a year or two. You have no provision for reconsideration like that in this Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: We are coming to an Amendment dealing with appeals to the Minister.

Mr. LAWSON: I am much obliged to you, Sir, for drawing my attention to the fact. I do not think it makes any difference to the point I have made. I suggest that this Sub-section should be withdrawn in order to give the Ministry of Health time to consult with a body which has more experience than any other Government Department in this matter, namely, the Ministry of Pensions, and to take such action as seems desirable after that consultation, when the Report stage comes.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I only intend to intervene in the Debate for a few minutes in order to join in the appeal which has been made to the Government to delete this provision from the Bill. The hon. and learned Attorney-General and myself have the privilege of belonging to the same political party, and I always understood that one of the stands which
we took in connection with the question of a contributory scheme as against a non-contributory scheme, was that in the former case the pension would belong by right to the recipients because they had contributed towards it, and it would be their property just as much as if it were a Civil Service pension. That is the argument I have always used in this matter in my own constituency. I agree that in many cases it might be desirable and possibly in the widow's own interest, if the money were administered by some other person or body, but if I may say so with all due respect to my hon. Friends above the Gangway, one phase of Socialism to which I strongly object is the tendency to say, "We can manage your affairs better than you can manage them yourselves." I have not the least doubt that a committee could spend my money better than I spend it myself, but I have not the smallest intention of ever allowing a committee to do so, and that is why I maintain that this provision is undesirable.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General in a very able speech pointed out one or two things that might happen to the disadvantage of the widow. He mentioned, I think, intemperance and moneylenders. I have been on boards of guardians for many years, and I have known cases investigated where it has been alleged that so-and-so went too much to the public-house, or was given to betting, or something of that kind. The board of guardians administer public funds, and could withdraw the grants from those funds, or reduce them, because the money was paid out of the rates. But in regard to this Measure, I want to take a strong stand in favour of people contributing towards the pensions, and then saying that they can spend the money as they think proper. That is the essence of this Bill. I can quite imagine complaints being made to the Minister that Mrs. So-and-so is constantly seen putting on a shilling with the bookmaker. It may be very unwise on her part, but why should she not do so. It is her money. It may be unwise, as I say, but you cannot go to a civil servant, with a pension of £500 a year, and say to him, "You are not allowed to bet." In my opinion that is the very essence of this scheme. Clause 21 is very different because it dealt with cases where the woman commits an offence against the law. As the Attorney-General
pointed out, that is another matter, but here it is simply a question of the faddist coming in and saying, "We think we can spend the money better than you can spend it yourself." I know there are cases which might be cited in favour of this provision, but this is a great question of legislation in which we have to weigh the pros and cone, and, in my opinion, we should not interfere with the great principle which underlies the contributory system, by which the pensioner is able to say, "This is my money. I have contributed towards it, or my husband has, and it is my property to dispose of as I wish."

Mr. HADEN GUEST: I give the fullest credit to the Attorney-General and to all hon. Members opposite for the excellence of their motives with regard to this Sub-section, but I think they are looking at the matter as superior people legislating for inferior people. It is not a question of any distinction between the party to which I belong and the party opposite. The division of opinion is between people who do not believe in the point of view I have just indicated, and the kind of people who love going into poor districts and doing what they call "good" to the poor. I do not want to mention any particular organisation, but we are all very familiar with the type. These people do a great deal of hard, and in many respects useful work, but very often in the lives of the poor people they are an intolerable nuisance. The fact of the matter is that people do not like having good done to them against their will. I agree with the last speaker that it is quite possible a committee might spend his money better than he spends it himself, and I will admit that I am quite certain a committee could spend my money better than I do it myself and probably more quickly, but that is not the point. The point is that we should not try to spend other people's money even for their own good. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad hon. Members opposite so fully agree with me because they are coming a step nearer to the right path. I do not pretend to be a lawyer—Heaven forbid!—but I notice that the learned Attorney-General did not reply to the point of the former Solicitor-General. Incidentally may I say that the habit of
referring to members of a former Government as the "late" has always rather annoyed me. The hon. and learned Member is not dead yet.
The Attorney-General, however, referred to some of the matters which might come under this Sub-section. He said a woman might spend all her money in drink. Is the drunkenness to be proved in a Court of law, or is there to be a general accusation levelled against the woman, not that she is drunken, but that she is in the habit of frequenting public-houses? That is the kind of accusation which is frequently made in poor districts. I lived for two years in Southwark, my own constituency, in a very poor district, and I am familiar with the kind of gossip which goes on in those districts. You cannot go in and out of your front door without everybody knowing what time you went in, or came out, and the representations made may be of a very curious description. I have known representations of an absolutely untrue and detrimental character to be made against people. Then the Attorney-General entered on a matter on which I can venture to express what might be called a medico-legal opinion. He spoke of people who were backward in mind, but were not fit to be certified as inmates of an asylum. In my profession we find it one of the most difficult things to determine the exact boundary between a person who is mentally deficient and a person who is backward, but apparently a local authority or some person making representations is to be allowed to determine that exceedingly difficult and delicate matter in this connection.
I think on those lines alone it can be shown that we are dealing with a class of case which ought to be proved by proper legal process, and you ought not to stereotype this kind of benevolent social interference in the lives of other people. It was suggested that the school attendance officer might make a report. I suppose the probation officer might also make a report, or the Bible woman at the Court or somebody connected with the Children's Care Committee. These are excellent hard-working people, of whom I know a number, but they are by no means infallible in judgment, and they are liable to suggest to poor people precisely how those poor people should live. They will walk into a poor person's
house, examine whether a room is clean or not, see whether the beds have been made and whether the children have been washed, all without a blush of shame, though if they attempted to do the same thing in the houses of hon. Members opposite they would be shown to the front door without any ceremony. I do not suggest that they have any bad intentions—far from it—but I suggest that this kind of benevolent interference, however well intentioned, is an intolerable nuisance in the lives of the poor. I hope the Minister will realise that, at the worst, these representations would be based only upon gossip and, at the best, upon investigation by a variety of people who pry into the lives of poor people and are not particularly well equipped for the purpose. In any case they would not be sufficiently definite to make them a proper basis on which to take away from a person something to which that person had a statutory right. I suggest this Sub-section is an attempt to put a legal camouflage over benevolent interference, that there is already too much of that interference in the lives of the poor, and that the Minister would be doing a good thing by withdrawing the proposal.

Mr. MELLER: I hesitated to join in this discussion because the case on both sides has been put very fairly and at one time I was almost persuaded by the eloquent remarks of the learned Attorney-General. I should like, however, to add one or two words from the practical point of view. As I view this Sub-section it seems to me very reminiscent of the powers given to the war pensions committees, and in my experience of those committees, from their beginning up to the present time, I have had occasion to deal with many hundreds of cases and I have had to consider complaints and representations made regarding people who came before those committees. After an experience of many years I am bound to say a very large proportion of the complaints could only have been made for purposes of petty annoyance. The committee and the visitors connected with the committee, in the most sympathetic way endeavour to sift the complaints, and it is seldom that they are able to prove that there is any real substance in those complaints. This would be an excellent
Clause were you dealing with the child in the case of the widow and her child, because I think you have to regard the widow in such a case as being the trustee for the child, and, therefore, the trustee should be a person above suspicion.
You are dealing with the widow herself, and I think it ought to be borne in mind that this is a purchased pension. It is not a gift which is given by the nation in respect of the dependants of those who served in the War. It is not even an old age pension, in which case, indeed, you would never dream of inquiring whether or not a man was spending his 10s. a week, or whatever it might be, properly. This is a case where the annuity or pension has been purchased. It is the inherent right of the widow of the insured person, and you have no more right to step in and say that that person is not spending her 10s. a week properly than you would have the right to say, if a woman earns 10s. a week and has a pension of 10s. a week, that the 10s. which she obtained from her employment made her drunk or that the 10s. from her pension made her drunk. I think it would be a great pity, and a blot upon what I believe to be an otherwise excellent Bill, to allow this Sub-section to go through.
On the question of representations, I do not feel the difficulty that some hon. Members have felt in regard to the Court or the local authority finding the representations. I think the representations come along quite easily, and the intention of the Sub-section is that when the representation is made it shall be sifted, I presume, by the local authority and then sent up to the Minister to deal with, but I think all that paraphernalia should be done away with. You might very well trust the widow to spend the money for her own use, and we have taken power in Sub-section (1) to look after the child. Having done that, I think we might very well, in this case, which is that of a purchased pension, let it go and see if time proves whether we are right or wrong.

Viscountess ASTOR: I hope the Minister will see his way to withdraw this Sub-section. From all sides of the House we have had good reasons given for such a course, but the real one, I think, no one has yet touched upon. It is not so
much that this is to penalise a woman as to how she is spending the money, but as to how she is living. That is really at the bottom of it. If I understand the Minister, he wants to save the children from living with a mother who is living the life of a prostitute. I think everyone would like to save them from that, if they could define it, but it is an indefinable thing, and what I am so frightened of is that under this Sub-section some woman, who may be a perfectly good mother, may perhaps make one slip, and someone will go to the authorities and will say: "This woman is living a life of prostitution and is not fit to look after her children," which may not be the case at all. This is not a pleasant thing to talk about, but I think we ought to face the realities of the situation. We know how much blackmail goes on in that way, that a man will turn out a woman and refuse to support her, and naturally the Committee would have to look into the matter. It is a case where there is such a great chance for blackmail, and I hope the Minister will see his way to do away with it, because, while many points have been put, that is really the main one, that you cannot judge how the woman is going to live. If you inquire as to how she is spending her money, at the back of it is the question as to how she is living, and I say it is too dangerous. Many a woman may be a good mother and love her children, but she may make a slip, and you ought not to take away her money on that account. You never do it in the case of a man, and you should not do it in the case of a woman.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was unfortunately obliged to leave the House for a few minutes a little while ago to do some other business, and I therefore did not hear the whole debate on this Sub-section, but since I have come back I have had the advantage of hearing the last few speeches that have been delivered, and I should like to give some further consideration to this matter. I do not want definitely to commit myself at this moment, until I have had the opportunity of reading what has been said and considering it further, not to reintroduce some Clause to deal with this matter on the Report stage, but I am quite prepared to withdraw the Subsection now.

Question, "That Sub-section (4) stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, at the end, to add the words
Any decision come to and any decision given by the Minister under this Section shall be deemed an award and shall be subject to all the provisions of Section twenty-eight of this Act.
The suggestion that in reference to all these Sub-sections—

Mr. SPENCER: On a point of Order. Are we in order in discussing this Amendment, seeing that the Sub-section has been withdrawn?

The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment applies to all the Sub-sections in the Clause, not only to the one Sub-section that has been withdrawn.

Mr. HARNEY: I need not detain the Committee many moments, but I took it upon myself to draft an Amendment dealing with the point of appeals, and it struck me that it was far better to have it in this form, covering the whole of the Clause, than in the form of the Amendment of the Minister himself. The reason why I put it in this form is that if hon. Members will turn to Clause 28 of the Bill, they will see that if a person is dissatisfied by an award by the Minister, the question has to be dealt with by all the machinery of appeal. I think it would be a convenient thing to annex that same machinery of appeal to a decision of the Minister under any of these Sub-sections. It has been conceded in the Debate that it is advisable that some check should be placed on Ministerial action in these matters, and I think the most effective check would be that whatever decision the Minister gives should be subjected to the whole machinery of appeal that is provided in the Bill for awards.

Sir K. WOOD: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Amendment. If he will look at Clause 6 as it stands now, he will find that all the matters referred there to the Minister are in the first place matters for his discretion, and, secondly, that they do not involve in any particular any deprivation of any allowance. It is simply a question of diversion.

Mr. HARNEY: I agree. I was endeavouring to make that point, but the noise was so great that I saw I was not heard. I do not suggest that there is any similarity between the exercise of the Minister's discretion under this Sub-section and the award under the other Clauses. All I said was that it is advisable, and I thought it was agreed by the Committee, that there should be some check put upon the Minister, and it occurred to me that it was a convenient stage at which to annex the machinery of appeal. If it is thought that that is not a convenient way, and the hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that something will be done to place a reasonable check on the Minister, I shall be quite satisfied to leave it to the Parliamentary draftsman to draw up words to cover the point.

Sir K. WOOD: I appreciate what the hon. and learned Member has said, but I do not think he was present when we were dealing with the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health at the bottom of page 1,398 of the Order Paper. We do not want to go to the expense of setting up this machinery in every case. We shall be dealing with the question on Clause 7, and I hope we shall be able to finish our labours for this evening when we have got that Clause by 8.15. I hope the hon. and learned Member will feel satisfied that we have made some provision there, as we do not want to set up all the elaborate machinery of the referees.

Mr. HARNEY: I am quite satisfied, and it is, of course, quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman will modify the Clause very considerably.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Old age pensions.)

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper, in page 6, line 5, to leave out the word "sixty-five" and to insert instead thereof the word "fifty-five," is outside the scope of the Bill. The next three Amendments—in page 6, line 14, to leave out from the word "person" to the end of the paragraph; in page 6, line 14, to leave out from the word "person" to the end of the Sub-
section; and in page 6, line 168, at the end, to insert new paragraph:
(d) if he or she attains the age of sixty-five after the appointed day and has ceased to be an insured person before attaining the age of sixty-five, he or she shall be entitled to a reduced old age pension depending in amount on the number of years of insurance in accordance with the table in the Fifth Schedule.
This reduced pension shall not diminish his or her rights after attaining the age of seventy to a pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts.
—are contrary to what was done on Clause 1. The next two Amendments —in page 6, to leave out lines 17 to 24 inclusive, and in page 6, line 18, to leave out the word "sixty" and to insert instead thereof the word "seventy"— refer to the question of what I may describe as the elderly susceptible bachelor or widower, which comes on another Clause.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: On a point of Order. The point raised on the last two Amendments which you have mentioned, Mr. Hope, is very different from that raised in Clause 3, which was concerned with the case of deathbed marriages in order that a woman might have a widow's pension. This is the case of a marriage in order that a woman may have an old age pension, the case of a man marrying a woman when he knows he will have to live with her for the rest of his life, which is a very different proposition, involving different arguments and different considerations, and surely we might have a few moments' discussion on that point. May I further point out that on Clause 3 there was an Amendment made in this very provision?

The CHAIRMAN: I was going to call that Amendment.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Certainly the discussion on that Amendment will cover the point.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
8.0 P.M.
We have passed from widows' pensions, orphans' pensions, and children's allowances, and we now come to old age pensions. This Clause establishes the payment of an old age pension at the age of 65. That, of course, is a pension payable to an insured person who falls within this
new scheme. Sub-section (1) of the Clause contains this proviso:
Provided that the wife of a man who had attained the age of sixty at the date of the marriage shall not, if the marriage takes place after the twenty-ninth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, be entitled to an old age pension under paragraph (c) of this Sub-section unless she was immediately before the marriage in receipt of a widow's pension, or unless or until five years have elapsed since the date of the marriage.
I am open to correction, but I understand the position is this. It does not follow that a woman in this case would receive a pension at 65 years of age. She must qualify for that pension at 65 by the fact that she must have been married for five years to her husband who is insured under the scheme. This Amendment, if carried, would make, it possible for a woman to secure a pension merely on the fact that she had been married to her insured husband for two years. I know the reply of the Minister will be that this involves actuarial calculations, but I do not think it requires very much pressure upon the Minister to give us a concession of this kind. He has been in rather a better mood in the last few hours than he was in the earlier part of the day, and I feel sure, now that he is in such a mood, he will meet us. Therefore, without any more ado, I beg to move the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is an analogous provision to that in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Clause 3. An Amendment was there moved to substitute two years for five, and I undertook to accept another Amendment to insert three years instead of five. I am quite content to accept an Amendment here if the hon. Gentleman will alter his Amendment in the same way.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 23, leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word "three."—[Mr. R. Davies.]

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha), and other hon.
Members—in page 6, line 28, at the end, to add a new Sub-section:
(3) Any person who, having attained the age of sixty years, has been employed for at least five years in the service of the Crown and has been superannuated by the Crown on reaching the customary age for the termination of his services shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary elsewhere in this Act, become entitled to an old age pension as from the date of the termination of his employment, and shall be entitled to the benefits which this Act confers, in respect of himself and his wife, in the same manner, as a person of sixty-five years of age,
is not relative to this Clause, and should be moved on Clause 15.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. DAVIES: I would not like the Committee to pass this Clause without having some discussion on its provisions. I regard this Clause as one of the most important in the Bill. It deals with old age pensions at 65 years of age. and we are beginning, of course, a new era on the question of old age pensions Old age pensions are now payable at 70 years of age, and there is no contribution of any kind to entitle a man of 70 and over to the old age pension. But, under this Clause, the insured person who qualifies by the necessary number of contributions will become entitled to an old age pension at 65. The only point I desire to make on the Clause is that the reduction in the age of the pensioner is too small when we remember that he will have paid for his pension at 65. On this side of the House we have pleaded for old age pensions at an earlier age even than 65, and I am prepared to say that a man or woman who has done his or her duty, an honest working man or working woman, faithful to the State and the community, ought to be entitled to an old age pension at 60, especially when we remember that they are called upon to pay for that pension.
I wish the Minister had given us an explanation on the point I raised the other evening, but, perhaps, he will take note of the questions I am about to put, and let us have that information. Under the National Health Insurance Acts, the State provides a given proportion of the benefits payable under that scheme. I want to know what is the
difference in the percentage of the contribution of the State under the National Health Insurance Act, and the contribution of the State under this scheme. I trust we shall get that information before we part with this Bill. I am not going to delay the passage of this Clause We have had a very good discussion, and the Minister has given one or two concessions. I hope and trust, as we proceed with this Bill, we shall be able to secure further concessions from the Minister. I feel positive we shall be able to convince him that this Bill is still deficient, and I am not so sure that when we come to deal with the Clauses in their final form, we shall not have something to further say on them.
We have objected, as strongly as ever we could, to any contributory basis for this scheme at all. We thought it was unfair to call upon people to pay for their old age pensions, and I see, according to the Actuary's Report and the White Paper issued on this Measure, that all persons who fall within this scheme will be called upon, ultimately, to pay for the whole of their old age pensions. We have objected to that principle, and I am hoping some day that a more humane Government will come into office to alter fundamentally some of its provisions. We dislike them, but, having amended the Clause, and secured one or two concessions, we are prepared to allow the Clause to pass to-night.
There are just one or two further observations I desire to make. I could never understand some of the Sub-sections in this Clause, and I am not satisfied even now. The Minister has given us a concession by altering five years to three. But I am still in a quandary as to what will happen to the woman under the amended part of this Clause. It seems to me, that if a woman marry at 65 years of age, even although we have secured a concession from the Minister, she will still have to wait till 68 before she can draw her old age pension. In fact, I think the Committee ought to understand very definitely that, although 65 years of age is specifically stipulated in this Clause, it does not follow that all persons will get a pension at 65 years of age.
As an illustration, take the case of a man who will come under this scheme next year. A man of 65 years of age in January, 1926, unless I am gravely mistaken, will not receive a pension under this scheme next January, but will be compelled to pay contributions for at least two years. Therefore, it is not correct to declare in this Bill that all men will be entitled to an old age pension at 65 years of age. The man who is now 68 years of age will also be called upon to pay for two years, and then will jump on to the old age pension ordinary scheme. He will not get any benefit at all, so far as I understand, from the contributions paid under this scheme, except, of course, that he will secure old age pension under the old scheme without any of the income qualifications. I feel sure the Committee will now allow the Clause to pass, but we shall have something to say on the whole of this Clause when we come to the Third Reading of the Measure.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AIR MINISTRY (CATTEWATER SEAPLANE STATION).

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm an agreement between the Cattewater Commissioners and the President of the Air Council in relation to the acquisition of certain lands in the county of Devon, and for purposes in connection therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the said President under the said Act and the said agreement, including the amount of any costs payable by him.

Mr. Hartshorn, Major Sir Philip Sassoon, and Brigadier-General Warner nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Air Ministry (Cattewater Seaplane Station) Bill.—[Lord Stanley.]

Orders of the Day — LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords].

(By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill is to be followed by a somewhat similar Bill promoted by the same company, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (New Capital) Bill. It might be for the convenience of the House, seeing that the two Bills are promoted by the same company, and cover substantially the same ground, that the general discussion should be taken on the first one.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On that point, Mr. Speaker, will it be possible to raise on the second Bill points that are not dealt with on the first Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: As I have said, we can take a general discussion on the first Bill which will cover both. Smaller points on the second Bill can be raised later.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On that point, Sir, as, generally speaking, in this House there is some Member who replies on behalf of the company, is it possible that certain points, nominally coming under the first Bill, when raised on the second Bill, will be dealt with by the hon. Member who replies on behalf of the company taking advantage of the fact, saying that the points had been disposed of in the first Bill, and declining to deal with them?

Mr. SPEAKER: In that case, I shall certainly allow what appear to be reasonable questions to be asked.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now ", and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
I desire to explain to the House something of the circumstances under which I came to table the Resolution which stands in my name. The railway company have facilitated my task, because they have circulated a paper to Members of the House, in which they have explained both the purpose of the Bill, and have suggested, partly correctly, the motive which I have in having tabled
the Amendment. My object is to take advantage of my Parliamentary privilege and endeavour to draw attention to a subject which concerns rather closely the Division which I have the honour to represent.
I feel that on an occasion of this sort that I am not in any way departing from Parliamentary practice in raising a general question affecting railway companies. I do not pretend, in the first place, that this is mostly connected with the Bill before the House, nor do I propose in dealing with the matter which I have in mind to challenge to any wide extent the general conduct by the railway company of its affairs. In fact, I may say at once that I have no objection whatever to the objects the railway company has in view in either of the two Bills. The circumstances which I propose to detail to the House are well known to the railway company, as I have made no secret of the cause which I intend to plead, nor, may I say, have the railway company made any secret of their case which I shall endeavour to meet. I feel that I have a case to make and a case to answer.
In the first place, I desire to call the attention of the House to the property of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway in West Kensington, a part of Western London which is included in my constituency. The railway company own this land which they acquired at the time of amalgamation, it having previously been the property of the Midland Railway Company. It consists of a large area of land, about 18 acres in extent, bounded on the East by the Midland Railway Line, and on the West by the North End Road, congested at times and a rather shabby thoroughfare. The land is at present devoted to two purposes. The larger part of it is used for an important coal depot, coal sidings, and goods yard. There is the Northern part, consisting of about a third of the total, which will be familiar to many Members of the House when I describe it as part of the sometime Earl's Court Exhibition ground. This piece of land has been the property of the railway company for about half a century, and is apparently to be used, subsequently, for the purposes of the railway. During the period of the War a portion of this land was occupied under the ægis of the Government, first for the accommodation of Belgian refugees, and later for some pur-
pose connected with Government stores. Since the Government vacated it, it has been, so far as my knowledge goes, put to no useful purpose either connected with the railway service or any other. There are many residents in that part of London, in my Division, who consider that a case could be made put for devoting that piece of land to some useful purpose, say, an open space.
I do not challenge the title of the company to the land. There is a divergence of opinion on that point, but, frankly, I do not share the views of certain of my friends in that respect. I challenge in no sense the company's right or title to the possession of the land, but, as I said, I am going to plead with them as to whether they cannot assist the community by devoting it to some rather better service than it serves at present. In a borough like the one to which I refer you may have a substantial amount of open space, as compared with other boroughs in London, yet your open space may be so situated that it does not altogether fulfil the urgent needs of the inhabitants; and the case I desire to put to the House is the enormous advantage and benefit to the people of one of our busy and congested areas it would be if this place, or even a portion of it, could be devoted to the purpose I have indicated. In the "Times" of this morning there is an apposite allusion, in a leading article, to this very question of open spaces, and I will read one or two sentences from it. One is reminded that the distance of playgrounds and open spaces from many homes puts them beyond the use of large numbers of people, which emphasises the point I have endeavoured to make, that open spaces at a distance, large and capacious though they may be, do not serve the purposes of the community as do smaller and more easily-accessible areas. At the end of the article the writer points out a further aspect of the matter. It is gratifying to read what he says, because it contains a promise or an optimistic outlook which we should all be glad to share. He says:
But, in spite of all difficulties, a great epoch of building and rebuilding is visibly upon us, and it is urgent for us not to yield to the assumption that there will always be somewhere to rest or to play so long as provision is made for sleeping and working.
In the district to which I am referring there is very inadequate provision, not so much for working, because my constituents do not work there, but have to go elsewhere to work, but for sleeping. There is a big percentage of overcrowding, and a very insufficient supply of homes.
Having dealt with the northern portion of this area, I will now come to the southern. As I have mentioned, the southern area comprises an important coal depot and goods depot, which has been there for something like half a century. It is not a neighbourhood where one would desire to see a large coal depot. It is not the neighbourhood in which, with our more enlightened views on town planning and zoning, we should nowadays place a coal depot. Without taking an exaggerated view, I think its presence there, apart from its utilitarian value, is really a blot on the local landscape. I have suggested to the right hon. Gentleman who presides over much of the administrative destinies of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway that now that the Midland Railway is one of a great group of other railways, under one head, they ought to consider whether it is not possible, though I know it is a bold suggestion to make, to vacate that particular area and to concentrate their coal and other business in one of the four coal wharves and depots which they possess within a radius of a little over a mile. If something of that sort could be done, the opportunity would present itself for such an improvement and development of that part of London as would go a long way to solving many of our local difficulties. One cannot nowadays conceive of a railway locating a big coal depot where that one is, interfering, as it does, with the natural development of a district which needs to be a residential and a shopping centre. It is a violation of town planning and a blot on our local landscape.
So much for the southern area, and, of course, the southern area affects the northern area very materially, because the railway company purchased the site as a whole, and have always said they could not consider parting with the Earl's Court ground space as they might require it for the development of their coal wharves and goods sidings. That is why I think the suggestion I made to
the railway company, although I admit it was a bold one, would have provided a very happy solution. As the one depends on the other, and as they do not require the one, they would no longer need the other, and we should have a much larger area to deal with. They have got other areas in the neighbourhood which I was at one time inclined to think they might develop in order to dispense with the one I have referred to. This matter has been the subject of considerable correspondence between myself and the very courteous officials of the railway company. They have treated such representations as I have made with patient and courteous consideration, but to all those representations they have returned a polite but very firm negative.
Not having succeeded in influencing the railway company in the direction of a modification of their coal siding plans one turns one's attention again to the Earl's Court ground, the northern part of the area. Here I must remind the House that although the railway company regard it as essential to their business, they have during the whole time they have been in possession of it never used it for any strictly railway purpose, so far as local knowledge goes. They do not at the present moment occupy it themselves. It is under lease to another railway company, which does not use it for railway purposes either; and at the moment at which I am addressing this House I believe that it is still derelict and unused. Its outer boundaries are still as unsightly as they have been for years, its tawdry decorations still remind one dimly of its more jovial past, and it remains altogether a rather miserable example of utilitarianism instead of what it might easily become if one could only persuade the railway company to take one's own point of view as to its development.
If the railway company cannot spare the coal wharves, cannot spare the whole of the Earl's Court grounds, one would suppose they might have been persuaded to deal with some of their frontage land. The frontage land along their coal wharves is used at present for a rather minor purpose. The road is narrow and the buildings along the frontage are only one-storey coal offices, or depots for the sale of coal, and I think they might
spare some of that for another purpose. So far as the Earl's Court grounds are concerned, I must admit they have so far yielded to pressure as to consent to sell a very small portion of that area, which I do not think possesses any very great value. Still one must admit, as one is not starting out to propose anything in the nature of an unfair bargain, that the railway company have a right to put a fair value on their property. The very small pieces of land they offered is in the view of the local people not worth anything like the figure which the railway companies have placed upon them. Having so far failed to obtain facilities in the Northern area for an open space and parts of the Southern area for future development. I put to the railway company the purpose I had in view, that is that we wanted some means of relieving our overcrowding in that area, and I asked whether they could see their way to consider a building scheme on their own frontage in the North End Road.
That suggestion was received with a certain amount of favour, and I was invited to prepare a plan. At that stage it was not worth spending much time and trouble and expense preparing something which might easily have been turned down, as in fact it has been. That is a rough outline of the course of negotiations. I have pleaded with the railway company to see whether they can spare us, first of all, part, if not the whole, of the land in those areas, and with their characteristic method of firmness I have received from the railway companies that negative to which I have already alluded. I think there is a prima facie case, considering that under the amalgamation the railway company have all these different coal sidings and depots, and surely they can do something to amalgamate some of them. If they cannot do that, will they consider helping us in some other way?
The railway company say they cannot spare their coal wharf because it is one of the most important they have, and they assert that the demands on it are increasing all the time. Frankly, one must accept the railway company's view of their own business. I am not in a position to tell the railway company what they can or cannot do with their own property. I can only plead with
them, as a great corporation, for a consideration of the local circumstances, and I ask them if they cannot do something to help us in these small matters. I ask them whether they will not allow us to have some of this land at a price, or else do something practical themselves in the direction of what we are anxious to do for the community.
If we can only persuade them to meet us in some reasonable fashion we should be able to widen our roads and do away with the derelict end or boundary in that part of London. If they would only do this then the people would bless the foresight and the wisdom of the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway. Up to the present my pleadings have been unavailing except in regard to a small promise to consider them. I am sure they will consider them, but I regret that up to the present they have not seen their way to meet me in a more generous or hopeful manner. I can only express my regret, and having voiced my protest I do not propose to interfere with the course of the company's business to the extent of dividing the House on this Motion. The purposes which the railway company have in view in this Bill are necessary for the reasons they have stated, and therefore I do cot propose to do more than ask my hon. Friend behind me to second this Motion. I trust that this great railway company will be able to give me something more than they have promised up to the present.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
As one who has always been very keen about sports of any description, when a question of open spaces comes up I cannot help saying a few words. I recollect that 25 years ago, before I went to the Far East, I played a great deal of cricket and football all round London, and, on coming back to London, I found that a great number of those places where I had played football and cricket in the old days were now built over. The railway companies seemingly cannot make use of this land, which they probably bought as a good speculation, and as business men I do not blame them for it. If they cannot use that ground at present, I think they might be persuaded in any case to let part
of it to be used as sports grounds of one sort or another. I have great pleasure in seconding this Amendment, and though, as the Mover has already said, he does not wish to press this Motion to a Division, I hope those who speak for the railway company will bear in mind that we have only decided not to press this Motion to a Division because we are afraid they might lose the Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: Reference has just been made to Earl's Court, but that does not concern what I am going to say, because I am going to make a special reference to Scotland. We have got a station called Buchanan Street Station in Glasgow, and it is not looked after so well as the place of which the last speaker has complained. Here we are in Glasgow with this prehistoric station. When you go to this old wooden stable you get tickets that take you up to a place called Gleneagles, where there is a huge beautiful station upon which a large amount of capital has been spent; and they are trying to distribute the relative proportion of the capital spent on Gleneagles Station down through the railways of the new amalgamation, and to spread away the million and a half that has been spent upon it. In Glasgow we have a population of a million, and we have a horse's stable as the only station for the North; but when we come to Gleneagles, a million and a half has been spent upon it. Had it been millworkers, or riveters, or shipbuilders, who went up to Gleneagles, there would have been no station, but only a wooden shed with a plank for the men to step out on. But who is it that goes from the City of Glasgow to Gleneagles to play golf? It is not the men who build the stations or run the railways, but only members of the Federation of British Industries, of the type you have in this House. They do not get down to their offices till 10 or 11 in the morning, and they leave at one or two and go to Gleneagles to play golf. That is supposed to be the idea of the railway companies, that for this handful of people who have time to play golf, and are able to afford to play golf by robbing the other chap, this station is to be built at an expenditure of a million and a half, while the working classes in Glasgow have to put up with this stable in Buchanan Street.
Then as regards the conveyances that this railway provides for the workers who
go down the Clyde to build the great ships that make the British nation great, what do you find? You find an underground railway that is like a sewer, with no relation to modern engineering science. There is neither ventilation nor anything else, and the carriages in which workmen have to travel in the morning are not so good as horse-boxes. The horses get a padded place to take off the jolts, someone suggests "the donkeys, the two-legged ones that go down there," what do they get? There is no gas lighting; you have a carriage with wooden seats, and, on a dark morning, if the men want to get a glimpse of the paper to see what horse came in yesterday, they have to carry their own candles and find their own light to see it. And here you have the company coming along asking for powers to get new capital. Not with my vote. I want to see some efficiency in the use of the capital that this House has allowed them to get before I give my vote for giving them any more.
The suggestion was made years ago that this part of the railway, at least, that goes down the side of the Clyde, ought to be electrified, and could have been electrified, but what happened? What did the great capitalist brain-box of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway do? They got up the guy that they were up against competition, and started making a lot of useless embankments, upon some of which no rails have ever been laid, and they spent on that 7½ millions; and now, because they have stupidly wasted that capital, on every ticket we buy to travel we have to pay the interest and sinking fund on that 7½ millions that has been wasted through their incapacity. Why should any corporate body be allowed to come and ask for more capital, with all that evidence standing on its record to-day showing that they were incapable of using the capital they got?. The cost of these railway embankments round about Glasgow, which have been built owing to the supposed competition, has got to come out of the travelling public, because the shareholder has still his grip on this dead investment in the shape of railway embankments that are not being used. They are making us pay through the nose for all their mistakes in fear of competition, which is supposed to be good for everyone.
Now we have the railway companies saying that they want this Bill because they are going to be subject to serious competition from omnibuses and roads and all that kind of thing, and things are looking bad. Whose fault is that? Take the case of the omnibus competition in Glasgow. There is no one with any sense who would go underground where they could travel above ground, and yet we have this line to which I have referred, and, apart altogether from their prehistoric methods in regard to transport arrangements, you never get the trains running at times to suit the people. You would think, so far as the Clyde was concerned, that the railway companies decided at what hours the workmen should travel and at what hours they should return, that they were the determining factor in the whole of the moving life of the city; and for them to come along now and ask quietly to have more power to continue their stupidity is something that I, at least, am definitely up against.
Now I come to a personal matter, because when one is dealing with workmen it becomes very personal. I want to make the complaint in this House that the railway company, so far as its old workmen are concerned, have not dealt fairly with those old men who have been so long in the service. If a corporate body is going to deal fairly with working men at the same age and having the same service, they ought to treat them all alike, but here we have this company drawing distinctions as to where it is going to give what it calls this reward. They make investigations as to the financial standing of this, that, and the other body, and then they begin to draw lines, and the man who, by accident or otherwise, may have a better suit of clothes, or 30s. more in the bank, is considered not to have rendered the same service as the other fellow. That is a most unfair way for a private company to deal with its workmen, and I want to enter my protest against it from these benches, and to say that it exactly typifies the outlook of this impersonal company, where you never get the personal touch between those who command and those who work.
So far as the capital is concerned, I should say that if this House were wise, in the interests of advancing railway
accommodation and advancing the whole of our needs in travel, we would say to these companies, "You can come back when you bring things up to date." They do things by halves. The Regulation came out that they should provide some drinking water in the long-distance compartments, and when you are in a train you see a little filter-jar, but you never see beside that jar anything whereby you can get some water to drink. In America, even in the third-class cars, there is a nest of paper cups, and the arrangement is sanitary as well, because when you have used one you just crush it up and place it in the receptacle below the filter; but here they seem to try and force you to ring the bell and call the waiter and pay for a drink. When I was interviewed in the Lobby of this House by the representative of the company, because I was opposing this Bill, I pointed that out, and he thought he would report it and that it would be remedied, but, so far as I have seen in my travels since, it has not been remedied.
With regard to the second Bill, and the question of what they are going to do with regard to this enclosure of land—I mean by enclosure of land the right to shut up rights of way—we are going to take every step we can to stop that Railway companies have power, when they get land, to do as they like with it. There are hundreds of places where they allow these things to become eyesores. I hope the Minister of Transport, in the interests of the travelling public, will take up this point and see that something as done, otherwise there is going to be strenuous opposition.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to oppose the Bill, for various reasons which I think are of sufficient gravity to warrant the House in rejecting it. In the first place, what ever difference there may be between Liberal and Tory or between Labour and Tory, I am sure everyone will agree with the first speaker in his desire for open spaces in the City of London. Of all places which are only equalled by my native City of Glasgow, there is no place that needs open spaces like the centre of London. I am sure everyone present who has heard this case will sympathise with the hon. Member in his views, and will do everything possible to get these much desired open spaces for
Kensington. The first thing I want to raise is a matter of very great indictment against the company. The first speaker indicted them because they were not giving open spaces. The last speaker indicted them on various scores, all of which I agree with. I want to indict them on a thing that I think of even greater gravity. One of the most famous characteristics of the city I represent is that the whole population are good footballers and attend football matches regularly. We can always beat England at Association Football. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] It is a shame that such a small country can always beat a far bigger one. There is something wrong with their education. We have our football club, just the same as in London or anywhere else, and recreation grounds, where big gatherings meet, are situated on the outskirts of the town. There are three means of locomotion—trams, chars-a-banc and railway companies. One of the grounds is known throughout the country as Hampden Park. In March last a great football match took place on a Saturday afternoon, at which there were about 90,000 spectators. The railway company carried passengers from the centre of the city as near the football match as they could get. Not merely was the seating capacity of the railway trains leaving the central station occupied but every available standing place, including the guard's van, was packed to overcrowding.
That was bad enough, but on returning from the match, they had an extremely long train, I am told one of the longest suburban trains that ever entered Glasgow, carrying more passengers than the London express carries any day in the week. Everyone agrees that the London to Glasgow express, apart altogether from any question of financial loss, ought to be very carefully examined to see that everything is in order in the interest of safety to the passengers. If that applies to your London trains, it ought to apply equally to ours. This train ran right into the buffers at Glasgow Central Station, the brakes refusing to operate, and a large number of casualties took place If it had not been for the promptness of the company's servants, of certain doctors, and of the St. Andrew's Ambulance Association, goodness knows what might not have
happened. An inquiry was held, and we found that the company did not carry out the necessary requirements, as I understand the Minister of Transport asked them to do, namely, that every engine leaving the shed to drive a train should be examined to see that the brakes are working properly. This company, which could not take that elementary precaution, that ran the risk of hundreds of human lives being destroyed, comes here and asks us for additional capital, when they cannot look after the plant they already have. This is a matter about which the Ministry of Transport ought to have taken some action, and even yet ought to make careful inquiry. It is the duty of the Minister to see that every reasonable precaution is taken to ensure that passengers travel in safety. If an engine drives a train carrying hundreds of passengers, and its brakes are obsolete or have never been examined, the company is endangering the lives of the passengers. In this case a severe accident occurred. An inquiry was held which condemned the company. I ask the Minister of Transport and the railway company's representatives what they are doing to see that this does not happen in the future.
A second item which I wish to raise is a matter upon which the Minister of Transport ought to take action, and that is the overcrowding in these trains. Why should a man or a woman, because they are attending a race, or a football match, or a cricket match, be packed together as though they were cattle, even worse than herrings in a box? For the safety of the travelling public I suggest that the Minister of Transport should take action, just as he takes action in regard to chars-à-banc, omnibuses or trams. In the accident to which I have referred, one of the worst features was that the driver was blamed for not doing his work. The moment the people in Glasgow read of that, indignation was rife, and this poor railway servant, who was merely a cog in the machine, was wholly blamed, whereas the directors ought to have been blamed for not carrying out their work and not seeing that every engine is properly examined.
In my native city the railway company are dismissing men and adding to the list of the unemployed. They are also putting
men on short time. Why should they be dismissing men, when they are not keeping the required staff to carry out their work? Why should not these engines be properly examined, equipped and turned out? Instead of dismissing men and putting them under the Employment Exchange, their task ought to be to see that the men are employed in useful work on the railways. I make no apology for raising this point, because it is an extremely important one and one which has given my constituents and the people of Glasgow much concern for some time.
I wish, further, to refer to a matter which affects the employés at one of the works in Glasgow belonging to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and which formerly belonged to the Caledonian Railway. I refer to the works at St. Rollox. They employed men in the wood-working and engineering departments. These men were compulsorily retired at 65 years of age, but the company, for some reason or other, differentiated between the wood-working employés and the men in the engineering shop. In the latter case they granted certain allowances, but in the case of the wood-workers they refused to make any allowance. Among the wood-workers there were men who had been employed 30 years continuously with the railway company; men who had been with the company from boyhood and had rendered extremely good service. These men were turned adrift on to the streets without any superannuation or any compensation, whilst an allowance was granted in the case of those who had been working on the engineering side. There ought to be equality of treatment, and I hope that after calling the attention of the directors to this matter they will see that it is rectified at an early date.
I wish to raise also a personal grievance. The other week, I travelled with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), who is one of the most energetic Members of this House, and a man who has given exceedingly good service. He occupied a position as Whip in the Labour Government. We joined the 5.30 train at Euston. I arrived half an hour or three-quarters of an hour before the train was due to start, and I thought that I should be in time to get a seat. But when I went to a first-class compartment I found that in all the
seats there were band-boxes. I found that they were empty band-boxes, and I shifted them. That is not luggage.
A quarter of an hour later, one of the hotel porters came along, and, using rather strong language, demanded that I should shift. He said that he had put the empty band-boxes on the seats for visitors at the hotel who would be coming on later. I refused to shift. Then the language became a little stronger, and he threatened to shift me, but having some experience of shifting, I stayed on. The hon. Member for Wigan, who, because he is an inoffensive man and one who resents anything in the way of a quarrel, removed, although he had been there half an hour before the other people on whose behalf the hotel porter had dumped the empty bandboxes. The porter demanded 3s., because he said the empty bandboxes had taken possession of the seats. He did not get any money out of me. The porter said that he was allowed to do that; that if a person stayed in the railway hotel, the porter was allowed to take empty bandboxes and place them on the seats in order to keep the seats for the persons who had been staying in the railway hotel. I am sure that the railway directors are not going to tolerate that. What amazed me, however, was that when I spoke to one of the railway directors in respect of my opposition to this Bill and I told him of this personal grievance, he said there was nothing wrong; that it was quite right. Imagine in the tramway cars if every porter in connection with the London County Council put empty boxes in the seats in order that their pals could travel and get a preference over the general public.
Why should the hotel porter be able to come along and monopolise seats by placing empty boxes in them? [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member opposite would not be able to get a seat unless he was prepared to bribe the porter who had monopolised the seats with the empty bandboxes, or unless he took the line that I took. I hope that this sort of thing will not be defended. There is not the slightest semblance of fairness in it. When a man has booked his seat, it ought to be a question of first come, first served. Those who are there first ought to get the seats. I often find in travelling on the railway
that "engaged" tickets are placed in practically every seat. There are very few seats available unless you have engaged the seat beforehand. In many cases I believe the seats are marked "engaged" without having been booked.
Another point. We who come from Glasgow and the north have the reputation of being very keen water drinkers, and we think that reasonable facilities ought to be granted to those who are travelling on trains to get a drink of water during the time of travel. A drink of fresh water ought to be the privilege of every passenger either first or third class. The other night I travelled north in a train and looked' for a drink of water, but I could not get it during the whole journey on the train. The only way I could get it was by getting out when the train stopped for the first time at Rugby and getting it there. I would ask that at least on long distance trains we should have a supply of cold water and facilities for drinking it as the privilege of every passenger.
I have referred to the question of accidents at several stations, and in this connection I would say that every effort should be made to look after the engines that leave the yards. There is complaint of the competition of the chars-á-banc, and I would suggest that if railway companies are to manage their affairs successfully they will have to improve their service vastly. Take the case of Glasgow. My wife comes to see me off every Sabbath night when I come here, and she has to pay 3d. to get on the platform, while in London she would get on for 1d. Why should people in Glasgow have to pay 3d. while people in London have only to pay the 1d? There may be a case for a proper charge, but why differentiate between London and Glasgow? You should have a uniform charge throughout the whole country. They have not to pay 3d. in Dundee. They pay 1d. in Dundee, 1d. in London and 1d. in Leeds, but they have to pay 3d. in Glasgow. The only conclusion to which I can come is that we have been too soft since we have come to this House of Commons. Possibly if we had made our presence felt more this charge of 3d. would have been long since abolished.
In Scotland before the War—I do not know the practice in England because I
seldom came here until I came to the House of Commons—a return ticket lasted at least six months. Two things have happened since then. They have reduced the period to two months for long distances and to three days for short distances. Some time ago I travelled from Glasgow to Barrhead, nine miles away, by train. Barrhead is famous because the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) resides there. I came back by tramcar, I went out again a week later and returned by railway and I found that the return ticket was available only for three days. If you take a return ticket for a shorter distance than 15 miles it lasts only three days. Why is there this differentiation between a distance of 15 and 16 miles? A return ticket should be available for the same two months no matter what distance you travel.
I have placed these matters before the directors because I think them sufficiently important to demand their attention. I come back now to the problem presented by the great accident at the Central Station, which might have far-reaching consequences to a railway company. On that occasion the railway company had charge of the lives of close on 1,000 people, and the company ought to exercise the greatest care to see that everyone is safely carried to its destination. That can only be done by the railway company taking every step to see that every servant in their employment is properly qualified for his task, and that every engine that leaves the shed is a proper engine thoroughly equipped for its work. I hope that the Minister of Transport will take steps to see that these requirements are carried out, and that the directors of the company will give us an assurance that accidents will not have the chance of occurring again, and that those other reforms to which I have referred will be carried out.

Mr. ATKINSON: May I say a few words from the point of view of the railway companies with regard to some of the points that have been raised? No objection has been taken to the Bills themselves, and the Mover of the Amendment (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) was so temperate in his language as to leave very little to say in reply to him. But I want the House to realise that, after all, the first duty of railway companies is to
perform those services which have been imposed upon them, and that the responsibility for any decision to Which they come is theirs. They alone know the circumstances, and they alone are capable of coming to a decision which will be a correct one. If a big company like this, after prolonged and serious consideration, says, "We do not think it right to give up this depot or the spare land which we have because we believe that it is our duty to retain it for possible development," this House cannot censure or disagree with that in any way. As to the suggestion that part of the land might be used for a building scheme, I understand that was considered, and the conclusion the directors came to was that it is not their job to go into building schemes. I am not sure that it is technically outside their powers, but it is not within the spirit of what they are there for. I am told they did offer seriously to consider handing over sufficient land for the carrying out of that building scheme if somebody else was going to carry it out. With that I think there is nothing more to be said on the depot point, except that it may interest the House to know that 200,000 tons of coal pass through there in a year, and some 20,000 tons of other traffic, and it would be a very serious undertaking to attempt to move that depot elsewhere. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is the 200,000 a recent figure and is the figure going up or down?"] I assume it refers to the present time. Those are figures which were given to me. I cannot tell whether it is up or down.
The next point was quite a serious one raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in connection with railway accidents. As I understand it— and again I only know what I am told— the hon. Member is mistaken in what he said about the cause of the accident. I find that the inspecting officer of the Ministry of Transport inquired into that matter and found that the driver, according to his own admission, must have misjudged the speed or mismanaged the brake, and that there was no finding that the brakes were inefficient or that there was anything wrong with them at all. I am told that the driver of the train did make some complaints about the brakes.

Mr. HARDIE: Seeing you have referred to the character of the man, and
his competence to drive, will you say what was the state of the second chamber that the engineman is acquainted with when his first chamber fails?

Mr. ATKINSON: I cannot tell the House that.

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. Is it fair on the part of anyone in this House—it may be done inadvertently— to cast reflection on a man who cannot be here to answer, and is it fair to use such language when the Report is at the service of any Member of this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear any such reflection. I am quite sure the experience the hon. and learned Member has would lead him to be very careful. In any case, is it desirable that we should discuss anything that has been a matter of inquiry?

Mr. HARDIE: Why not leave it out?

Mr. ATKINSON: One of the difficulties which necessarily arise when hon. Members are free to raise any point regarding the conduct of railway companies, is that the companies can only make a guess at the points likely to be raised, and it is impossible to come fully armed beforehand. As to this particular trouble, the charge that is made is a charge against the railway company because the brakes were out of order. All I can tell the House is that I am told that the inspecting officer reported that the driver, according to his own admission, must have misjudged the speed or mismanaged the brakes. I do not suggest for a moment that I am in a position to express any opinion as to whether that finding was right or wrong. It may have been wrong.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Report did state that that engine left the shed without being examined as to the condition of its brakes.

Mr. ATKINSON: Again, I have not got the Report here. All I can do, and I think the House will accept it, is to repeat that the inspecting officer reported in the way I have quoted. It is not fair to ask this House to condemn the railway company because its brakes were out of order when the Report is to the contrary.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Report was not to the contrary. The Report stated that it left without its brakes being examined.

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice has evidently not been given of the points that hon. Members are raising.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I told the director there what I was raising.

Mr. SPEAKER: Apparently on the immediate question an inquiry has been held, and I imagine all that has been done is to give a report of the inquiry.

Mr. ATKINSON: A great deal of the stock that was taken by the combined companies from the Caledonian Company was out of date, and is rapidly being replaced. I am told that already 445 of the carriages taken over from the Caledonian Company have been scrapped and replaced. Insofar as that complaint is well-founded, it is one which is being rapidly removed. Some of the other complaints seem to be more or less trifling. I am unable to deal with them because there again, as far as I know, the railway company had no idea they were going to be raised, and although one has been supplied with information with regard to a good many things, that does not cover the price of the ticket on the platform in Glasgow or the drinking water supply on the train. I come back to the Bill which, after all, we are discussing. It is to enable the railway company to put down two small lengths of line to colliery companies, and to raise 7½ millions for the very purpose of making improvements which so far is I know may cover some of the matters mentioned to-night. It seems arguing the wrong way round to say, let them put these things right first and then come for the money. Surely the logical view must be to give them the money first—

Mr. HARDIE: And let them waste it again.

Mr. ATKINSON: —and let them make the improvements they desire to make.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The several questions that have been raised to-night were notified in advance to the representative of the railway company who perambulated the Lobby for a considerable time when these Bills were first introduced. There is one point of which I am certain that he got notice, because I for one gave him notice of it. I have asked questions in this House on the subject, and no reference has been made to it to-night. I refer
to the contemptuous disregard of Scottish public opinion in the penalties imposed on purchasers of tickets at Scottish stations, as against purchasers of tickets at London stations. At the Central Station in Glasgow a first-class return tourist ticket to London costs 165s. A return tourist ticket to Glasgow purchased in London costs 151s. 3d. That is a penalisation against Glasgow of 13s. 8d. A third-class tourist return ticket at Glasgow costs 99s. If I get it in London I am asked to pay only 90s. 9d. It is the same journey in both cases, and it is on the same railway.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Campbell) knows what is in the minds of the railway company directors, or whether he is attached in any way to the railway company. He pretends that he knows what is in the minds of the directors, for he says that the reason for this differentiation is that they want to get people from London into Scotland. Surely there must be some other reason, for they must equally want Scots people to travel by rail to London. We have a Government, financially interested in the success of the British Empire Exhibition, spending public money upon guarantees, yet sitting supinely down in face of the fact that there is a financial penalty imposed upon Scottish people coming to London, particularly during the Wembley season. I, for one, can understand neither the financial direction of the railway company nor the British Government that tolerates it.
There is another point that has not been traversed to-night. It also has been intimated in the Lobby to the representative of the railway company. I refer to the question of third-class sleeping accommodation. A man who wants to travel on an all-night journey, third class, cannot go to the guard or attendant and say "Here is my pound for a sleeping berth. My pound is as good as that of the man who has a first-class ticket." The guard replies "No. Your pound may be as good as the first class passenger's pound, but because you do not have in addition a first-class ticket, I will refuse to take your pound and refuse to let you have sleeping facilities on the train." Not until the railway companies provide third-class sleepers for all-night journeys,
charging for them of course, should elected representatives of the people in this House give a free or easy passage to any railway company's Bill.
I shall not repeat what my hon. Friends have said about the scandalous provision of drinking water on these long journeys. Protests have been made time and again about the inadequate supply of water, the lack of utensils, and the dirty condition of the water supply in the trains. Even in the first-class coaches the lavatory provision is limited to two hand-towels for drying one's hands when there is a whole series of carriages filled with passengers. How miserably, how shamefully inadequate! If you wash your hands during the first five miles of the journey you have a chance of getting a clean towel. If you wait half an hour you have to dry your hands on your handkerchief or your clothes. The thing is so miserable, so cheap, so inefficient, and so annoying to travellers, and protests by the thousands have been made, but all without the slightest effect. I am very sorry, indeed, that the hon. Member who opposed this Bill at the beginning saw fit to withdraw his opposition before a promise was given that these scandals would be wiped out.
There is another point that I have raised repeatedly. It relates to the hours of labour which men are compelled to work on steamers owned by the company. At a time when there is grave unemployment, when you have thousands and hundreds of thousands of capable engineers and others idle and drawing State money, when many of them are in poverty after having been out of work for years, you actually have these great and wealthy railway companies running steamers on the River Clyde, and, despite public protest, compelling their employés to work 90 hours a week. With other hon. Members I have gone with deputations to the Board of Trade. I know that the present Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trade was quite sympathetic to our point of view. He took the matter up at once. He said it was a scandal, and that he would do everything that he and his officials could do to induce the companies to make a change. They simply returned a non possumus. The companies refused to move and gave a most extraordinary series of excuses for continuing the system of a 90 hours' week in the midst of appalling unemployment. So long as I am
a Member of this House, if the London and North Eastern Company or the London, Midland and Scottish Company comes to this House for extended powers, I propose to do everything I can to obstruct its Bills until these and similar scandals are abolished.

Mr. MacLAREN: Like my colleagues, I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) has not been more determined in his opposition. I have, had the duty of passing Earl's Court almost every day since 1911. I have seen it falling into disrepute from its glorified pasteboard days until the present time. It is now an eyesore. The reply of the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) was of a rather queer character. He made the remark that the company knew best how to use its property. That is an imperious way in which to champion the cause of the railway company.

Mr. ATKINSON: I do not think I said that. I think what I said was that they knew best whether it would be right or wrong to give up this land, and that they alone could judge whether the land would or would not be wanted for further development of their depot.

Mr. MacLAREN: If the hon. and learned Member makes inquiries in and around Earl's Court he will find that the people who live there are better able to judge of what Earl's Court means to them than the company. The show ground is lying there idle, and at the same time there is a congestion of population coming from the other side of the river and converging on this point, and such a space as this would be a great boon. I still maintain that the railway company should find other places at which to discharge coal, more suitable than the place which they are using there. Why they should unload this enormous amount of coal contiguous to Earl's Court I do not know. The people locally will tell you that it is an eyesore, and it is high time something was done either by the railway company itself or by forcing the hands of the railway company through the medium of this House, to remedy the position in regard to this land. This is not a time to discuss how the railway company came by that land. They have enjoyed ownership of it for 12 years, and I am mot going into the
question of how they acquired it, but I hope this discussion to-night, even if the matter is not forced to a Division, will have a salutary effect.
I am glad that my colleagues from Glasgow have emphasised the point about Buchanan Street Station and the underground railway there. I left Glasgow in 1910, and, like an hon. Member who previously intervened, I have not gone back, but I can never forget the ghastly conditions of the underground railway between Rutherglen and Buchanan Street. You had condensed steam, unsavoury carriages, and a service which was not at all conducive to the well-being of the community. When one thinks of that underground system and of the famous Buchanan Street Station —like a painting by a blind man of a derelict bridge—combined with the position at Earl's Court, one begins to wonder if the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company is really anxious to serve the public or to serve itself. There is another point which brings me directly home to my own Division. We had a local system which served the area in and around Stoke-on-Trent. The old railway company was known as the North Stafford Line, and it was famous throughout the country, because when you entered a station to catch a train, sometimes it came and sometimes it did not, but you were there. It has been merged in the larger organisation and, I believe, the natives of the Stoke area now report that the new service is somewhat worse than the old. I hope those who are guardians of the interests of the railway companies will take these points of criticism not as being raised by way of obstruction but as being genuine grievances brought forward because we are in the advantageous position to-night of having the railway company's head on the block. These points are sincerely put forward in the hope that something will be done, and I only wish that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) had given a more definite lead in this matter and had taken his forces into the Division Lobby.

Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: I do not rise as a defender of the interests of railway companies, but to take part in this discussion from the public point of view. I am surprised to hear my hon. Friends
above the Gangway threaten obstruction and talk of "scandals," as if a railway company is not a public benefactor by coming forward with a proposal to improve with capital the value of the productive resources of the country, and to provide additional work for skilled and unskilled labour. Railway companies have to compete with motor methods of traffic and with roads provided at the public expense for motorists to use; their difficulties are increasing daily, and when they come forward to raise additional capital and thereby swell the wages fund and give work they should be met, perhaps with criticism, but certainly not with threats of obstruction or assailed with epithets so strong as the word "scandal." I have travelled over railways in many parts of the world, and if there is any railway which is eminent for its superlative equipment, unrivalled permanent way, and so on, it is the particular railway that is promoting this Bill. Nevertheless, this is an occasion when all criticism is allowable, even if it be of a minor character, provided that it is constructive and meant to be useful. Although this railway has gone on improving until it occupies a first place among the railway organisations of the world, there is one point of parsimonious management in which I notice a retrograde policy. At the most important of all railway stations anywhere, at the great station of Euston, there used to be a refreshment room open day and night.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Free?

Sir G. STRICKLAND: At the present day no amount of payment would get a cup of tea there in the early hours of the morning when passengers arrive by night trains from the country. It is not a matter of substantial importance in itself, but I think so great a company ought not to show retrogression in any direction whatever nor be parsimonious at its home station. On another point, I think the future of railway companies all over the world and their opportunities and possibilities of competing with other forms of traffic depends so largely upon their capacity, ability and foresight, and, if you like to use an American word, on their "previousness" in adopting electric traction, that whenever a railway company comes forward with a demand for support by a Bill in Parliament, that
demand should be accompanied with some evidence of its anxiety to adopt electric traction as soon as possible, and such a change is so fundamental that it should be pressed as a general question even when no Clause of a Bill is akin thereto.

Mr. STEPHEN: I desire to support the point of view that has been put from these benches, and I want to say to the hon. Member opposite who was putting in a plea for the railway company, to the effect that some of those points had not been made known to the company, that most of them have already been raised on the Floor of this House. The Secretary for Scotland himself, as the result of a Debate in this House, promised to use his influence with this company in order to get some of those things remedied. I think that all sides of the House, irrespective of party, were in agreement with the Scottish Members that there was no case for this three penny ticket for the platform on Glasgow stations, but that is months ago, and in spite of the fact that the Secretary for Scotland, Scotland's representative in this Government, approached the railway company in this connection, we are still in the position of Glasgow having to submit to this injustice.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) also took occasion to draw attention to the ridiculous position in which Glasgow was placed, in regard to the return ticket issued from Glasgow to London and the one issued from London to Glasgow. There is this little difference between them, that the ticket that you get at the London stations is what is called a tourist ticket, but the ticket you get in Glasgow is not, and the difference between these two tickets is that the tourist ticket allows you to break your journey at various stations along the route, so that an additional benefit is given to the traveller, but the railway company seems to take up the strange point of view that, because that additional benefit is given, the price of the ticket should be lower. We hope we are going to get, as a result of this Debate, these tourist tickets issued in Glasgow from Glasgow to London, just as they are issued in London from London to Glasgow, and if the company gets a Second Reading of these Bills to-night, I think I am
putting a justifiable plea to Members of this Houses—I am not seeking to make any threat—when I say that, if common-sense grievances like those are not remedied before we come to the Third Reading of these Measures, we should be able to look for the support of Members in all parts of the House for the rejection of those Measures.
There is a great deal to be said for seeking to encourage a railway company to make its service as efficient as possible. Incidentally, it will bring profit to the shareholders of the railway company, but if it is going to bring that profit, it is also going to increase the services that the community demands. We believe that the railway company, as a result of these criticisms, if the management pays attention to them, will be giving a better service to the public, and inclining the people more to take a railway journey in order to carry through their business than otherwise would be the case.
10.0 P.M.
I would like to refer to the Wembley Exhibition and the interest that this House has in that exhibition. The figures that have been given by the Minister for the Overseas Trade Department, as to the numbers that have been visiting it, have certainly not been what we should like to have heard, and I think the railway companies might do ever so much more to make this exhibition a success. I do not think we have anything like the interest for people to come to London and see this great Empire Exhibition that the railway companies could give, and could give without having to bear any loss. Take the case of the excursions that have been run from Scotland in connection with the exhibition. It means travelling all night, being at the exhibition during the day, and then travelling back all night again. If the railway company would throw in one more day in this form of excursion ticket, which they have introduced in order to serve the interests of the exhibition, I am sure it would be for the good of the country as a whole and for the advantage of the railway company themselves. I am quite sure it would be of great advantage to trade as well, to have this bigger stream of people coming into London in this way, and gaining a sense of the extent of the Empire, its development and its industry;
and I cannot understand how hon. Members opposite, who have so much influence with the railway companies, are not using it in order to get something more done in this respect.
I do not want to go into any very special details in regard to these Bills at this stage. There certainly are various points that possibly, as hon. Members tell us when we raise those questions, are bettor dealt with in Committee, but I am leaving them till then, and I hope that Members in all parts of the House will be with us in our opposition to the Third Reading of these Bills, unless we get these little grievances remedied, those little things where the common-sense of Members in all parts of the House sees we are right, such as this irritating platform ticket, the tourist tickets, decent cleanliness with regard to towel accommodation and drinking-water on the trains, and things like that. The railway company can have no justification for allowing those grievances to continue.

Mr. FIELDEN: As a representative of the railway company that has submitted these Bills to the House, I would like to express my appreciation of the tone of the criticisms that have been offered with regard to the two Bills. I think I can reply very shortly, because there is very little to say with regard to the points that have been made, except to explain why these things have occurred which, from the railway point of view, we admit, are things it is desirable should not occur. If the House will allow me, I would first of all like to take the question of this vacant land in Fulham. I should like to clear up a little point which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) made which, I think, was not quite clearly understood, and that is with regard to the question of letting some of this land for the purpose of building houses upon it. The General Manager has said, in reply, I think, to a letter from the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan), that he would be quite willing to consider whether the company could spare from their depot sufficient to enable this scheme to be carried out.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The hon. Member realises that is hardly the assurance given by the hon. and learned Gentleman behind him, an assurance I should be very glad to accept.

Mr. FIELDEN: The railway company are perfectly willing to consider if they can meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and those whom he represents in the district, and they will consider any schema he puts forward; but, in saying that, I cannot pledge the railway company to do anything beyond fairly to consider whether they can meet him. This land has been in the possession of the old Midland Railway Company for a long time. Part of it is occupied as coal depots, and it is fully occupied at the present time. It is rather peculiar that in regard to this Bill, which asks for powers to make a railway in Nottingham to bring coal on to the main line, which coal would naturally flow towards London, at the same time we are asked to give up land in London which may very likely be required for the reception of that very coal. There are other depots in that district. Those other depots are at present used to their fullest capacity, and we must retain some power of expansion, unless coal is going out of consumption in a district such as Fulham. But I wish to assure the House that it is no dog-in-the-manger idea that the company has, but we do want to see our road clearly before us, because if once we surrender land like this, which is capable of adaption for the purposes we have in view, and those purposes are serving the community at large, it is necessary that we should go very carefully, and that we should not surrender something that we could not regain except at very great additional expense.
Some of the questions that have been raised are questions affecting the travelling public, and are questions which it is quite right and proper should be brought forward to show the delinquencies of the company, but, at the same time, I do not think they bulk very largely in a company of the size of the London, Midland and Scottish, which carries an enormous number of passengers in reasonable comfort, reasonable speed, and, we hope, safety. With regard to the Buchanan Street station in Glasgow and the underground in Glasgow, and other matters, we cannot go very fast. We do know that these are places which should be dealt with, and we hope at no distant date we shall be able to make improvements' there. With regard to the unfortunate accident at Glasgow, that question was inquired into by the officials of the Board
of Trade, and the finding of that inquiry was not against the condition of the brakes on the engine, but the railway company have taken steps since to see that they make a closer examination of the engines than what took place before, and we hope such an accident will be by that means avoided.
There are other questions that have been raised. There is the question of drinking water. We are building new big trains, some of them running now between London and Glasgow, and I hope and trust that those trains will have ample supplies of drinking water. If they have not, I can only say they ought to have. With regard to the question of tourist tickets, if you gave tourist tickets from Glasgow to London, we should have to give tourist tickets from every big town. Although I hope I am not belittling the importance of Glasgow, I am afraid there are other towns which would say, "You have given this to Glasgow, and, therefore, you must give it to us," and that would mean that, during the period of tourist tickets, all fares would be reduced to tourist fares, and I am afraid the finances of the railway company would not justify them in carrying that out.

Mr. STEPHEN: Surely the railway company could give it in the case of a place as far away as Glasgow. One would not suggest, possibly, there should be tourist tickets from Brighton to London, or anything like that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] The hon. Gentleman has said the expenses would be so much, but surely from Glasgow to London there should be tourist tickets.

Mr. FIELDEN: I myself come from the Manchester district, and I quite appreciate the difficulty in resisting a similar claim to that provided by the Lancashire and Yorkshire. At the same time I believe that in Glasgow some concession of that sort has been given.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There are tourist tickets. You can get a ticket to 60 miles beyond London, but a man does not want a tourist ticket from the Clyde. He wants a ticket for the return journey from the Clyde to London. You can get a tourist ticket to Brighton for 9d. more than your ordinary ticket costs to London?

Mr. FIELDEN: Then I hope everybody will book to London from Scotland.
There is one other point; that was in regard to the closing of the works on Saturday and of working short time. The reason for that movement was that it was considered desirable to spread the work as much as possible so that the railway shops might be run for a reasonably lengthy time. In regard to the number of carriages, we are now building 2,579 new ones and 635 new locomotives. We are doing all we can to bring our rolling stock into a better condition, and at the same time to find employment. After this explanation I hope the House will give us the Bill.

Mr. STEPHEN: What about the platform ticket at Glasgow, 3d. instead of 1d.?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to appeal to those who can assist us on the benches on this side on this occasion. I am very sorry that this very important Bill should have come before the House at a time when most of the Members have gone home, because they are tired and used up. This is a Bill which ought to have been submitted to the House when the House was able to go into it, for it requires the very best brains that the House possesses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] It is an obvious calamity, because quite a number of individuals might have taken part in this Debate, which has, in one way, not been taken so seriously as it might have been. Now hon. Members are trying to turn it into a joke. I can, however, assure them that before I am finished they will find that it is no joke with me; it is a very serious matter. Why should the railway companies require to come to this House in order that they may extend their operations, as against any other form of private enterprise?
Ask yourselves that question, and at once you get the answer. The railway companies enjoy a privilege. They have got a licence. Just as the publicans have a licence to serve liquor, the railway companies enjoy a privilege from the people of this country, and they get that licence from us who are the representatives of the people. They are the stewards of a great inheritance that has been handed down to us in this present day and generation, the great inheritance that was bestowed on this country 100 years ago this week when Stephenson put
down the railroad from Stockton-on-Tees to Darlington, which was opened 100 years ago by the Duke of Wellington. As a result of that great invention we have our present railway system in this country. In our country we have the greatest network of railways in the world, in a given area. Those who represent the railway companies are the custodians on our behalf, on behalf of the people, not on their own behalf, of that great inheritance. Those who represent the railway companies have used that great inheritance in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the community.
I want to prove what I have stated. I know Members are not all shareholders in railway companies, and I believe there are some Members who are prepared, if we can prove to them honestly that our contentions are correct, to support us on the floor of the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I was saying the railway companies have taken advantage of their position to make money for themselves at the expense of the travelling public. Those are the words I uttered when I was interrupted. What do I mean by that? We have considerable experience of travelling on the railways—not only on our journeys from this benighted city to our native land. We believe in getting back to our native land, because we believe
I to the hills will lift mine eyes.
From whence doth come my aid.
Not only have we experience of travelling to Scotland, but of travelling all over Britain in carrying on our propaganda on behalf of Socialism, and there we see what goes on on the railways.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the workings of railways, or the use of them in general on this Motion. The Debate has had a very wide scope, but there must be some connection in the hon. Member's remarks with this particular railway.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will give the experience of two of my colleagues in connection with this particular railway. They had a bitter experience in travelling in one of the carriages belonging to this particular company—I refer to the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson). They were travelling in a railway compartment in the night time
when the carriage door flew open, and the train had to be stopped. That was made right, but they had not gone very much further when another carriage door flew open. [Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite can afford to laugh at that statement, it only shows the mental calibre they are made up of. Here you have a railway company which has the audacity to come here and ask for concessions from us, and request us to hand over to them certain rights, and this is how they behave when they get those rights, and the doors of the carriages are in such a disgraceful condition that they will not remain shut.
When you are lying stretched out on a carriage seat, travelling all night, after doing a hard week's work, hammering facts into the heads of you benighted folk opposite, the door flies open when the train is going between 60 or 70 miles an hour, and there is only one foot betwixt you and death if you happen to wake up. Had my two colleagues not been two cool Scotsmen, in all probability they would not have been alive to-day to tell the tale. That is one of my complaints against this particular company. Again, when travelling on this particular company's line at night, both third-class and first-class passengers, ladies and gentlemen, have to use the same lavatory. These are facts and that is what is going on, and this kind of thing is being done more now than before the amalgamation of the railways. We certainly have not had as good travelling facilities as we had before the amalgamation took place. The last speaker made some attempt to justify the railway companies in their blood-sucking operations, and in his preamble he stated that this railway company had been approached regarding the state of the underground railways in and around Glasgow.
That is perfectly true. I went to Mr. Dalrymple, the manager of the Glasgow Corporation Tramways Department, and got him to make out a map of the entire underground railway system of Glasgow, in order that I might lay it before the Minister of Transport here in the House of Commons, to demonstrate to him that in Glasgow, with our underground system, we already have the tubes, but with this difference, that our system, owing to the blood-sucking operations of the railway
directors, is under steam, and the Underground is a scandal to civilisation. You dare not go into the Central Underground Station, or Glasgow Cross Underground Station, or Charing Cross, or Anderson Cross, unless you take the risk of having all your clothes smutted by the effects of the steam going on the roof and bringing down the soot. It is a regular disgrace. The President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Transport went to this railway company and appealed to them. It is not only that electricity is certainly bound to be the motive power of the future, but my idea in taking the matter up at that time was to find good, necessary work for unemployed engineers in Glasgow. Here was a method whereby we could employ thousands of engineers, at a time when they are employing engineers at making roads—destroying engineers. Here was a method, and the people who should have come to our support refused to do so—these people who are getting grants. You come here begging, you rich men come here begging on your bended knees to this House—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will please address his remarks to me, and not across the House.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They come here, Mr. Speaker, on their bended knees; they come here cap in hand, they send their lawyer fraternity to lobby us here in the House of Commons, in order to get their Bills through, they come here like any common beggar man, although they pose as great, rich, wealthy, independent men. It is not true; they have no independence; all they are interested in is in wringing profit out of the system. There was an opportunity, if the railway directors were, as they posed to be, patriots out for the benefit of their country, out to make this a great Empire that will always be booming, and pretending that they are interested in it. They are only interested in their own selfish gain. Again, I appealed to the railway company on behalf of the working men who work in the yards in my constituency. Prior to the War, we could travel from Glasgow, as I did for many years, down to Clydebank, a matter of 10 miles, and we got workmen's tickets at 1s. a week—six workmen's return tickets. Now they demand 3s. for the
same—3s. from men who are working for 39s. a week. Those are the robbers who live on the flesh and blood of the working classes. Those individuals extract this 3s. from the workers who are working for 39s. a week when they have a full week. Nothing could be more inhumane. I appeal to the railway company. I induced the Labour party when they were in office to use their whole influence with the company to grant some concession to the people I represent on the banks of the Clyde, and they refused. The galling part of it is this. This is what enrages me against them. There is no finer type of workman in the world. It is said they will not work. That statement is absolutely untrue. They competed against the world for those two cruisers for Australia, and they got the cruisers, proving conclusively, if that were necessary, to a lot of thickheads in this country that those men are capable. They would not concede anything to them, but what do you think they did concede? They gave that concession that I appealed for to those who were going to play golf. They refused to give us any assistance to help us over this difficulty that we are in in this terrible crisis through which we are passing on the Clyde. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I can speak up. I am not like a lot of you—tools. When we appealed to them they turned a deaf ear. Yet to individuals who are going to enjoy themselves they can give all manner of concessions. To people who can afford to golf on an afternoon they give reduced fares. Yet the very men that this Empire depends upon, the working folk, get no concessions from those hard, brass-faced men who have the hardihood to come here.
One other point I wish to raise. Again it is the same railway company. Dumbarton is a very old town, hoary with tradition. In Dumbarton there is a level crossing. That level crossing over your railway may have served its day and generation, but that day has passed. The scene has changed, because there is a spirit abroad in the land which says the working folk of the country must be housed better than ever they were before.
Dumbarton has caught that spirit. Dumbarton Town Council have a great housing scheme. They are doing away with their slums, and taking the people from houses that are anything from 100 to 150 years old, and sending them to the new housing scheme. To get to that new housing scheme, they have to go over a level crossing on the main line. We have appealed to the railway company. I used the whole weight of the Labour movement when Labour was in office, to get the railway company to put up a bridge instead of the level crossing. They would do nothing. Their answer was on the same lines as that given to-day by a Minister, when he said, with respect to blind children at a school in London, that none had been hurt. The railway company said that no children had been killed in going to their homes in the new housing scheme.
These are the outstanding facts that occur to me at the moment, because I have just come from addressing a huge open-air meeting, where I have been busy denouncing the present rulers in our native land. I take advantage of this occasion to appeal to the patient oxen on the other side, who line up against anything that comes from these benches. I still have hope, because hope does spring eternal in the human breast, and it is a good thing that it does, that there will be men left here to-night who will dare to be a Daniel, who will dare to vote against pounds, shillings and pence, and who will dare to support us. We have no axe to grind, no shares in any railway companies, and no shares in anything but in our native land, and we believe that in this instance we are appealing in the best interests of the entire community of Great Britain in asking that the rulers in Britain will not be dragged at the chariot wheels of rich men, but that they will have the hardiness to stand up along with us and support us in this protest against railway companies, who have no right to be deriving great profits at the expense of the travelling public.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: In view of the explanations that I have received, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

London, Midland and Scottish Railway (New Capital) Bill [Lords] (by Order), read a Second time, and committed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter before Eleven o'Clock.